Skip to main content

Full text of "On a fresh revision of the English New Testament"

See other formats

















All Rights reserved 

First Edition 1871 
Second Edition 1872 
Third Edition 1891 



B-S 25/7 

L 5-3 

i *?/ 


TOURING the last summer, immediately before 
"-^ the Company appointed for the Revision of 
the English New Testament held its first sitting, I 
was invited to read a paper on the subject before a 
Clerical meeting. Finding that I had already written 
more than I could venture to read even to a very 
patient and considerate audience, and receiving a 
request from my hearers at the conclusion that the 
paper should be printed, I determined to revise the 
whole and make additions to it before publication. 
The result is the present volume. Owing to various 
interruptions its appearance has been delayed much 
longer than I had anticipated. 

This statement of facts was perhaps needed to 
justify the appearance of a book, which as occupying 
well-known ground cannot urge the plea of novelty, 
which has many imperfections in form, and which 



makes no pretensions to completeness. At all events 
it appeared necessary to be thus explicit, in order to 
show that I alone am responsible for any expressions 
of opinion contained in this volume, and that they 
do not (except accidentally) represent the views of 
the Company of which I am a member. In preparing 
the original paper for the press, I have been careful 
not to go beyond verbal alterations, where I was dis- 
cussing the prospects of the new Revision or the 
principles which in my opinion ought to guide it 
On the other hand, I have not scrupled to develope 
these principles freely, and to add fresh illustrations 
from time to time: but in most cases this has been 
done without any knowledge of the opinion of the 
majority of the Company ; and in the comparatively 
few instances where this opinion has become known 
to me, I have expressed my own individual judg- 
ment, which might or might not accord therewith. 

I ought to add also that I am quite prepared to 
find on consultation with others, that some of the 
suggestions offered here are open to objections which 
I had overlooked, and which might render them im- 
practicable in a Version intended for popular use, 
whatever value they may have from a scholar's point 
of view. 

The hopeful anticipations, which I had ventured 
to express before the commencement of the work, 


have been more than realized hitherto in its progress. 
On this point I have not heard a dissentient voice 
among members of the Company. I believe that all 
who have taken part regularly in the work will 
thankfully acknowledge the earnestness, moderation, 
truthfulness, and reverence, which have marked the 
deliberations of the Company, and which seem to 
justify the most sanguine auguries. 

This feeling contrasts strangely with the outcry 
which has been raised against the work by those who 
have had no opportunity of witnessing its actual 
progress, who have been disturbed by rumours of its 
results either wholly false or only partially true, and 
who necessarily judging on a priori grounds have 
been ready to condemn it unheard. This panic was 
perhaps not unnatural, and might have been antici- 
pated. Meanwhile however other dangers from an 
unforeseen quarter have threatened the progress of 
the Revision; but these are now happily averted. 
And, so far as present appearances can be trusted, 
the momentary peril has resulted in permanent good ; 
for the Company has been taught by the danger 
which threatened it to feel its own strength and co- 
herence; and there is every prospect that the work 
will be brought happily and successfully to a con- 

Great misunderstanding seems to prevail as to the 


ultimate reception of the work. The alarm which 
has been expressed in some quarters can only be 
explained by a vague confusion of thought, as 
though the Houses of Convocation, while solemnly 
pledged to the furtherance of the work on definite 
conditions, were also pledged to its ultimate recep- 
tion whether good or bad. If the distinction had 
been kept in view, it is difficult to believe that there 
would have been even a momentary desire to repu- 
diate the obligations of a definite contract. The 
Houses of Convocation are as free, as the different 
bodies of Nonconformists represented in the Com- 
panies, to reject the Revised Version, when it appears, 
if it is not satisfactory. I do not suppose that any 
member of either Company would think of claiming 
any other consideration for the work, when completed, 
than that it shall be judged by its intrinsic merits; 
but on the other hand they have a right to demand 
that it shall be laid before the Church and the people 
of England in its integrity, and that a verdict shall 
be pronounced upon it as a whole. 

I cannot close these remarks without expressing 
my deep thankfulness that I have been allowed to 
take part in this work of Revision. I have spent 
many happy and profitable hours over it, and made 
many friends who otherwise would probably have 
remained unknown to me. Even though the work 


should be terminated abruptly to-morrow, I for one 
should not consider it lost labour. 

In choosing my examples I have generally avoided 
dwelling on passages which have been fully discussed 
by others; but it was not possible to put the case 
fairly before the public without venturing from time 
to time on preoccupied ground, though in such in- 
stances I have endeavoured to tread as lightly as 

The discussion in the Appendix 1 perhaps needs 
some apology. Though it has apparently no very 
direct bearing on the main subject of the volume, yet 
the investigation was undertaken in the first instance 
with a view to my work as a reviser; and hoping 
that the results might contribute towards permanently 
fixing the meaning of an expression, which occurs 
in the most familiar and most sacred of all forms of 
words, and which nevertheless has been and still is 
variously interpreted, I gladly seized this opportunity 
of placing them on record. 

April 3, 1871. 

1 Appendix I. in the Third Edition [1891]. 
L. R. 


second edition is in all essential respects a 
reprint of the first. A few errors have been corrected, 
and one or two unimportant additions made, but the new 
matter altogether would not occupy more than a page. 

The reception accorded to this book has taken me by 
surprise, and the early call for a new edition would have 
prevented me from making any great changes, even if I had 
felt any desire to do so. To my critics, whether public or 
private, I can only return my very sincere thanks for their 
generous welcome of a work of whose imperfections the 
author himself must be only too conscious. 

From this expression of gratitude I see no reason to 
except the critique of Mr Earle 1 in a letter addressed to the 
editor of the Guardian ; but I am sure that he will pardon 
me if, while thankfully acknowledging the friendly tone of 
his letter, I venture entirely to dissent from a principle of 
translation to which he has lent the authority of his name. 

In fact he has attacked the very position in my work, 
which I confidently held, and still hold, to be impregnable. 
I had laid it down as a rule (subject of course to special 
exceptions) that, where the same word occurs in the same 

1 Now Professor of Anglo-Saxon in the University of Oxford. 


context in the original, it should be rendered by the same 
equivalent in the Version (p. 36 sq.); or, as Mr Earle ex- 
presses it, that 'a verbal repetition in English should be 
employed to represent a verbal repetition in the Greek.' 
Mr Earle (I will employ his own words) would reverse this, 
and say that in many of my details he would practically 
come to my conclusion, but that the principle itself, with 
all the speciousness of its appearance, is essentially unsound. 
This position he endeavours to establish by arguments, 
which I feel bound to meet, for I consider the principle 
which he assails to be essential to a thoroughly good 

If, notwithstanding our opposite points of view, we had 
arrived at the same results, or, in other words, if Mr Earle's 
exceptions to his principle of variety were coextensive or 
nearly coextensive with my own applications of my principle 
of uniformity, I should have felt any discussion of his views 
to be superfluous ; for then, so far as regards any practical 
issues, the difference between us would have been reduced 
to a mere battle of words. But when I find that Mr Earle 
defends such a rendering as Matt, xviii. 33, 'Shouldest not 
thou also have had compassion (eXe^o-at) on thy fellow- 
servant, even as I had/#>> (qA.e>?<ra) on thee?', I feel that the 
difference between us is irreconcilable. Indeed I had 
vainly thought that my illustrations (with one or two doubtful 
exceptions) would carry conviction in themselves; and I 
confess myself a little surprised to find their cogency 
questioned by an English scholar of Mr Earle's eminence. 

But, lest I should be misunderstood, let me say at the 
outset that I entirely agree with Mr Earle in deprecating 


the mode of procedure which would substitute ' the fidelity 
of a lexicon' for 'the faithfulness of a translation.' I am 
well aware that this is a real danger to careful minds trained 
in habits of minute verbal criticism, and I always have 
raised and shall raise my voice against any changes which 
propose to sacrifice forcible English idiom to exact con- 
formity of expression. For instance, it would be mere 
pedantry to substitute 'Do not ye rather excel them?' for 
'Are not ye much better than they ?' in Matt. vi. 26 (ov^ v/xcis 
/mAAov Sleeper* avrwv) ; or ' The hour hath approached/ 
for ' The hour is at hand,' in Matt. xxvi. 45 (ijyyi/cev 17 wpa). 
But the point at issue seems to me to be wholly different, 
I cannot for a moment regard this as a question of English 
idiom ; and my objection to the variety of rendering which 
Mr Earle advocates is that it does depart from ' the faithful- 
ness of a translation' and substitutes, not indeed the fidelity 
of a lexicon, but the caprice of a translator. 

Mr Earle says ' The stronghold of the Greek (I do not 
speak of Plato and Demosthenes, but of the New Testa- 
ment) is in the words: the stronghold of the English 
language is in its phraseology and variability.' This is not 
the distinction which I should myself give between the 
characteristics of the two languages. Even in its later 
stages the wealth of particles, the power of inflexion and 
composition, and the manifold possibilities of order, still 
constitute the peculiar superiority of the Greek over the 
English. But it matters little whether I am right or wrong 
here, for the objections to Mr Earle's practical inferences 
are equally strong in either case. He first of all alleges 
examples where synonyms are coupled in English, and more 


especially in rendering from another language, as for 
instance in Chaucer's translation of Boethius' De Con- 
solatione Philosophiae, where daritudo is rendered 'renoun 
and clernesse of linage-,' and censor 'domesman or juge'; 
and he then urges that as this method of double rendering 
was 'manifestly inadmissible in translating scripture,' 'the 
translators fell upon a device by which they allowed some 
play to the natural bent of the English language; and 
where a Greek word occurs repeatedly in a context, they 
rather leaned to a variation of the rendering.' 

Now it is one thing to give a double rendering to a 
single word at any one occurrence ; and another to give it 
two different renderings at two different occurrences in the 
same context. The two principles have nothing in common. 
In the former case the translation will at the worst be 
clumsy; in the latter it must in many cases be absolutely 
misleading. For by splitting up the sense of the word and 
giving one-half to one part of the sentence and the remain- 
ing half to the other, a disconnexion, perhaps even a con- 
trast, is introduced, which has no place in the original. If 
therefore the English on any occasion furnishes no exact 
and coextensive equivalent for a given Greek word as used 
in a given context (and this difficulty must occur again 
and again in translation from any language to another), it 
will generally be the less evil of the two to select the word 
which comes nearest in meaning to the original and to 
retain this throughout. 

But the examples of capricious varieties which I had 
chosen to illustrate this vicious principle of translation, and 
which Mr Earle is prepared to defend, cannot in most cases 

L. R. b 


plead this justification, that a single English word does not 
adequately represent the Greek. It would require far more 
minute scholarship than I possess to discern any difference 
in meaning between mos and ' son.' Yet Mr Earle stands 
forward as the champion of the rendering in Matt. xx. 20, 
' Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children (viv) 
with her sons (won/).' The particular rendering is compara- 
tively unimportant in itself; but as illustrating the capricious 
license of our translators it is highly significant. It introduces 
a variety for no reason at all : and this variety is incorrect 
in itself; for 'the mother of Zebedee's children' is a wider 
expression than 'the mother of Zebedee's sons,' by which 
the Evangelist intends only to describe her as the mother of 
James and John with whom the narrative is concerned, and 
which neither implies nor suggests the existence of other 
brothers and sisters. 

Again, Mr Earle is satisfied and more than satisfied 
with the rendering of Matt, xviii. 33, 'Shouldest not thou also 
have had compassion (eXe^o-at) on thy fellow-servant, even 
as I had//?? (iJAeqo-a) on thee ?' ' If,' he asks, ' we compare 
our "compassion pity" with the one Greek word, what 
loss is there in the variation? Is there not a gain in 
breadth ? ' I answer, a very serious loss ; and I do not 
allow that breadth (or, as I prefer to call it, looseness) is 
any gain, where exact correspondence in the two clauses is 
essential to the main idea of the passage. What would be 
said, if I were to suggest such translations as ' Blessed are 
the pitiful (eA^'/Aoves), for they shall obtain mercy (fXeqOij- 
o-ovrat) ' in Matt. v. 7, or 'If ye forgive (a^prc) not men 
their trespasses (TrapaTTTw/Aara), neither will your heavenly 


Father remit (dtfrrjcrei) your transgressions (TrapaTrrw/taTa)' in 
Matt. vi. 15, or 'Be ye therefore faultless (reAeioi) as your 
Father which is in heaven is perfect (re'Aeios)' in Matt. v. 
48 ? I do not doubt that if these passages had been so 
translated in our Authorised Version, the variations would 
have found admirers : but, as it is, who will question the 
vast superiority of the existing renderings, where the 
repetition of the English word corresponds to the repeti- 
tion of the Greek? In all these passages the thought is 
one and the same ; that the ideal of human conduct is the 
exact copying of the Divine. In the other examples quoted 
our translators have preserved this thought unimpaired by 
repeating the same word, but in Matt, xviii. 33 it is marred 
by the double rendering 'compassion, pity' : while the idea 
of l fellow-te\mg\ which is implied in 'compassion' and in 
which the chief fault lies, has no place in the original 

Again, Mr Earle defends the double rendering of 
s in i Cor. xii. 4, ' There are diversities of gifts, 
but the same Spirit ; and there are differences of adminis- 
trations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of 
operations, but it is the same God etc.,' and seems even 
to regret the abandonment of Tyndale's triple rendering, 
diversities, differences, divers manners. What again, I ask, 
would be said, if I were to propose to translate 2 Cor. xi. 26 
' In perils of waters, in dangers from robbers, in perils by 
mine own countrymen, in dangers from the heathen, in 
hazards in the city, in hazards in the wilderness, etc.,' 
thus gaining breadth by varying the rendering of /avSvVots ? 
Happily conservative feeling in this instance is enlisted on 



the right side, and it may be presumed that no change will 
be desired. But, so far as I can see, the two cases are exactly 
analogous ; the effect of the sentence in each case depending 
on the maintenance of the same word, which arrests the 
ear and produces its effect by repetition, like the tolling of 
a bell or the stroke on an anvil. Indeed I must conclude 
that my mind is differently constituted from Mr Earle's, 
when I find him defending the translation of James ii. 
2, 3 * If there come unto your assembly a man with a gold 
ring in goodly apparel (o> laOrfn Xa/xTrpot) and there come 
in also a poor man in vile raiment (iaBfjri), and ye have 
respect unto him that weareth the gay clothing (rrjv co-Orjra 
njv Xa/x7rpav) etc.' Not only do I regard the variation here 
as highly artificial (a sufficient condemnation in itself), but 
it seems to me to dissipate the force of the passage, and 
therefore I am prepared to submit to the ' cruel impoverish- 
ment' by which the English would be made to conform to 
the simplicity of the Greek. Nor again am I able to see 
why in Rev. xvii. 6 c0av/Acura Gav^a /u,eya, 'I wondered 
with great admiration' is to be preferred to the natural 
rendering 'I wondered with great wonder] as in i Thess. 
iii. 9 7rt TraoTy r x a p 5 x */ 30 /* 61 ' ^ VJJWLS is translated ' for 
all the joy wherewith we/<ry for your sakes', and not 'for 
all the gladness' In this passage from the Revelation the 
words immediately following (ver. 7) run in the English 
Version, 'And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst 
thou marvel (e'&xv/xcwras) ?', where by the introduction of a 
third rendering a still further injury is inflicted on the 
compactness of the passage. 

So far with regard to the sense. But Mr Earle urges 


that the sound must be consulted; that the ear, for in- 
stance, requires the variations compassion, pity, in Matt, 
xviii. 33, and wonder, admiration (he omits to notice 
marvel} in Rev. xvii. 6, 7 ; that generally there is this ' broad 
modulatory distinction between the ancient tongues and 
the great modern languages of Western Europe that the 
former could tolerate reverberation to a degree which is in- 
tolerable to the latter ; ' and that { perhaps there is not one of 
them that is more sensitive in this respect than the English.' 
In reply to this, I will ask my readers whether there is 
anything unpleasant to the ear in the frequent repetition of 
'perils' in the passage already quoted, 2 Cor. xi. 26, or of 
'blessed' in the beatitudes, Matt. v. 3 n. But this last 
reference suggests an application of the experimental test 
on a larger scale. I should find it difficult (and I venture 
to hope that Mr Earle will agree with me here) to point to 
any three continuous chapters in the New Testament, which 
are at once so vigorously and faithfully rendered, and in 
which the rhythm and sound so entirely satisfy the ear, as 
those which make up the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed this 
portion of our Authorised Version deserves to be regarded as 
a very model of successful translation. What then are the 
facts ? In the original the reverberation is sustained through- 
out, beginning with the beatitudes and ending with the 
closing parable, so that there are not many verses without 
an instance, while some contain two or three. Happily in 
our Authorised Version this characteristic is faithfully re- 
produced. The temptation to capricious variety to which our 
translators elsewhere give way is here foregone ; and indeed 
the whole number of the repetitions in the English is slightly 


greater than in the Greek : for though either from inadver- 
tence or from the exigencies of translation one is dropped 
here and there (e.g. Aa'/xTrei, Xa^drw, giveth light, shine, 
v. 15, 16; bring, offer, Trpocr^epfls, wpoV^epe, v. 23, 24; 
oXcXv/Jtci/^v, put away, divorced, v. 31, 32 ; 
, opKovs, forswear, oaths, v. 33 ; a<aviovo-i, <a- 
VOKTI, disfigure, appear, vi. 16; Grja-avpL&Tc, flrjo-avpovs, /<2j; 
#/, treasures, vi. 19; TrcpiejSaXeTo, 7repi/3aXw/*,0a, arrayed, 
clothed, vi. 29, 31; /Aerpw, /xerpctrc, measure, mete, (?) vii. 2; 
wKoSo'/^o-o/, ouu'av, /7/, ^02^, vii. 24) yet on the other 
hand the balance is more than redressed by the same ren- 
dering of different words in other parts (e. g. light, KCUOVO-IV, 
Aa/MTCt, <<Ss, V. 14 16; fulfil, irX^pwo-ai, yeV^rat, v. 17, 18; 
righteousness repeated, though SiKaioo-w^ occurs only once 
in the original, v. 20 ; whosoever, iras c c , 05 av, v. 22 ; divorce- 
ment, divorced, dTroorao-iov, aTroXeAv/xei/^v, v. 31, 32 ; forswear, 
swear, eTriopfoJaeis, o/xoom, v. 33, 34; reward, purQov, O.TTO- 
Soxrfi, vi. 2, 4, 5, 6, 1 6, 1 8 ; streets, pv/xai?, 7rAaT3v, vi. 2, 5 ; 
day, daily, o-^epov, ITTIOVCTIOV, vi. 1 1 ; /^/, Xvx vo9 > <#>wTtvov, 
</>ws, vi. 22, 23 ; raiment, arrayed, ci/Sv/xaro?, 7repie/3aA.eTO, vi. 
28, 29; clothe, clothed, d^iivvuvw, TreptjSaXw/Me^a, vi. 30, 31 ; 
good, ayaflov, KaXovs, vii. 17, 18; ^^/, 7rpo(r7r(rav, Trpoo'e- 
Kofav, vii. 25, 27). If my readers are of opinion that the 
general method adopted by our translators in the Sermon 
on the Mount is faulty, and that these three chapters would 
have gained by greater breadth and variety, I have nothing 
more to say ; but, if they are satisfied with this method, then 
they have conceded everything for which I am arguing 1 . 

1 I confess myself quite unable to follow Mr Earle's logic, when he 
criticises what I had said of the Rheims Version. My words are (p. 49), 


But Mr Earle proceeds : ' There is no end to the curio- 
sities of scholarship and the perilous minutiae that such a 
principle may lead to, if it is persevered in'; and by way of 
illustration he adds, * Dr Lightfoot seems to ignore what I 
should have regarded as an obvious fact, that it is hardly 
possible in modern English to make a play upon words 
compatible with elevation of style. It was compatible with 
solemnity in Hebrew and also in the Hebrew-tinctured Greek 
of the New Testament ; but in English it is not. Explain 
it as you may, the fact is palpable. Does it not tax all our 
esteem for Shakspeare to put up with many a passage of 
which in any other author we should not hesitate to say 
that it was deformed and debased by a jingle of word- 
sounds ?' 

To this I answer fearlessly that I certainly do desire to 
see the play of words retained in the English Version, 
wherever it can be done without forcing the English. I be- 

'Of all the English Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention 
to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to 
which in most other respects it is confessedly inferior.' On this he 
remarks ; ' It is certainly unfortunate for our author's position that by 
his own showing the version which has kept to his principle should 
nevertheless be confessedly inferior in most other respects, including, as 
I apprehend, the highest respects that can affect our judgment of a 
version of Holy Scripture. To put this admission with the clearness 
due to its importance ; the Rheims Version is the best, in that it has 
observed our author's principle : but as a rendering of Scripture it is the 
worst.' Why unfortunate? Does experience suggest that the man 
or the book that is right on five points out of six, must be right on 
the sixth point also? Does it not rather lead us to expect some ele- 
ment of right in the most wrong and some element of wrong in the 
most right ? 


lieve that our translators acted rightly when they rendered 
Xpw/xevoi, Karaxpw/xcvot, by use, abuse in i Cor. vii. 31;! 
believe that they were only wrong in translating /cara-To/x^, 
TrepiTo//^', concision, circumcision^ in Phil. iii. 2, 3, because the 
former is hardly a recognised English word and would not 
be generally understood. I freely confess that in many 
cases, perhaps in most cases, the thing cannot be done ; but 
I am sorry for it 1 . I cannot for a moment acquiesce in 

1 On my suggestion that in 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 the play on epyafoptvovs, 
irepiepyafrfjitvovs, might be preserved by the words business, busy-bodies, 
Mr Earle remarks ; ' As a matter of history the word business has no 
radical connection with busy: it is merely a disguised form of the 
French besognes. This is however a secondary matter, because if the 
word-play be desirable as a matter of English taste, these words would 
answer the purpose just as well as if their affinity were quite esta- 
blished.' Without hazarding any opinion on a question on which Mr 
Earle is so much more competent to speak than myself, I would ven- 
ture to remark : (i) That the direct derivation of business from busy is 
maintained by no less an authority than Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Gram- 
matik, ii. p. 237 sq. ; (2) That other authorities maintain (whether 
rightly or wrongly I do not venture to say) the radical connexion of 
the Teutonic words busy (Engl.), bezig (Dutch), with the Romance 
words besogne, bisogna ; and (3) That this very play of words occurs in 
the earliest English translations of the Scriptures, the Wycliffite Ver- 
sions, in i Cor. vii. 32, * I wole you for to be withoute bisynesse (d/xe/>{/4- 
wus, Vulg. sine sollicitudine). Sothli he that is withoute wyf is bysy 
(fj.fpifotq., Vulg. sollicitus est) what thingis ben of the Lord.' 

Mr Earle remarks that in 2 Thess. iii. n 'Even the Rheims Version 
keeps clear of this (the play of words) : it has "working nothing, but 
curiously meddling.'" The fact is that after its wont it has translated 
the Vulgate Nihil operantes sed curiose agentes,' in which this cha- 
racteristic of the original has disappeared. 

This paronomasia is not confined to S. Paul but occurs also in Ari- 


Mr Earle's opinion, that it is incompatible with * solemnity,' 
with * elevation of style.' Above all I repudiate the notion, 
which seems to underlie whole paragraphs of Mr Earle's 
critique, that it is the business of a translator, when he 
is dealing with the Bible, to improve the style of his author, 
having before my eyes the warning examples of the past, 
and believing that all such attempts will end in discom- 
fiture 1 . Is it not one great merit of our English Version, 

stides II. p. 418 TttOra ef/ryao-Tcu /*&... Trepiei/rycurrcu 3 /XTjSa/tws, just as 
the Apostle's Qpovew, ffuQpovew (Rom. xii. 3) has a parallel in a passage 
quoted by Stobseus as from Charondas Floril. xliv. 40 Trpoo-iroielada) 
5 &ca<rros ruv TTO\ITW crbxppoveiv fta\\ov rj <f>poveij>. 

1 The anxiety to impart dignity to the language of the Apostles 
and Evangelists reaches a climax in A Liberal Translation of the New 
Testament, being an attempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the 
same Freedom, Spirit and Elegance with which other English Transla- 
tions from the Greek Classics have lately been executed : by E. Harwood, 
London, 1 768. In this strange production the following is a sample of 
S. Luke's narrative (xi. 40), 'Absurd and preposterous conduct ! Did not 
the Great Being, who made the external form, create the internal intel- 
lectual powers and will He not be more solicitous for the purity of the 
mind than for the showy elegance of the body?' and this again of S. 
John's (iii. 32), ' But though this exalted personage freely publishes and 
solemnly attests those heavenly doctrines, etc.' The parable of the 
prodigal son in the former begins (xv. 1 1), 'A gentleman of splendid 
family and opulent fortune had two sons.' Even Dr Johnson himself, 
the great master of grandiloquent English, could not tolerate this 
book. * Returning through the house,' we are told, * he stepped into 
a small study or book-room. The first book he laid his hands upon 
was Harwood's Liberal Translation of the New Testament. The pas- 
sage which first caught his eye was that sublime apostrophe in S. John 
upon the raising of Lazarus Jesus wept, which Harwood had conceitedly 
rendered And Jesus, the Saviour of the world, burst into afiood of tears. 


regarded as a literary work, that it has naturalised in our 
language the magnificent Hebraisms of the original ? But 
the case before us is even stronger than this. The paronomasia 
is a characteristic of S. Paul's style, and should be repro- 
duced (so far as the genius of the English language permits) 
like any other characteristic. That it is admissible, the 
example of Shakespeare which Mr Earle adduces, and that 
of Tennyson, whose 'name and fame' he himself has already 
quoted and who abounds in similar examples of alliteration 
and assonance, not to mention other standard writers whether 
of the Elizabethan or of the Victorian era, are sufficient 
evidence. I am not concerned to defend Shakespeare's 
literary reputation, which may be left to itself; and I have 
certainly no wish to maintain that he was entirely free from 
the affectations of his age : but I am unfeignedly surprised 
to find plays on words condemned wholesale, as incom- 
patible with elevation of style. Under certain circum- 
stances, paronomasia, alliteration, and the like, are not only 
very natural, but, as indicating intensity of feeling, may 
produce even a tragic effect With the appreciation of a 

He contemptuously threw the book aside, exclaiming " Puppy ! '" (Ap- 
pendix to Boswell's Life of Johnson, in Croker's edition, London, 1866, 
p. 836). Johnson's biographer, Boswell, speaks of it as ' a fantastical 
translation of the New Testament in modern phrase' (p. 506). See also 
Mr Matthew Arnold's opinion (quoted below p. 2 10 sq.) on a very similar 
attempt at a revised version by Franklin. I am quite sure that Mr 
Earle's suffrage would be on the same side ; but, when he asks that the 
distinctive features of the sacred writers may be sacrificed to ' elevation 
of style ' and pleads that the language may be made more ' full-bodied* 
to suit * the public taste ' than it is in the original, is he not leading us, 
though by a different road, to the edge of the very same precipice ? 


great genius Shakespeare himself has explained and justi- 
fied their use under such circumstances. When John of 
Gaunt, in his last illness, is visited by Richard, and in reply 
to the king's enquiry keeps harping on his name, 
Old Gaunt indeed and gaunt in being old, 
the king asks, 

Can sick men play so nicely with their names? 
The old man's answer is, 

No; misery makes sport to mock itself. 

The very intensity of his grief seeks relief in this way 1 . 

Again, who will question the propriety of the play on 
words in Queen Elizabeth's outburst of anger against Glou- 
cester after the murder of her children ? 

Cousins, indeed ; and by their uncle cozen'd 
Of comfort, kingdom, kindred, freedom, life. 

The very fierceness of her wrath seeks expression in the 
iteration of the same sounds. 

And in cases where no intensity of passion exists, there 
may be some other determining motive. Thus we find a 
tendency in all languages to repetition of sound, where a 
didactic purpose is served Of this motive the fondness for 
rhyme, alliteration, and the like, in the familiar proverbs of 
all languages, affords ample illustration, as in Waste not, 
want not, Forewarned, forearmed, Man proposes, God disposes, 
Compendia dispendia, TraOtj^ara fta^/xara. To this cate- 
gory we may assign S. Paul's py i,Vep<poi/etv Trap' o Set 

1 Similarly Cicero, speaking of the Sicilians playing on the name 
of Verres, says (Verr. Act. ii. i. 46) 'etiam ridiculi inveniebantur ex 


<J>poveiv, aAAa <poveTi> eis TO a<i)<j>poveiv (Rom. xii. 3). In- 
deed it would not be difficult to show that in every instance 
the Apostle had some reason for employing this figure, 
and that he did not use it as a mere rhetorical plaything. 
We may find ourselves unable in any individual case to 
reproduce the same effect in English, and thus may be 
forced to abandon the attempt in despair ; but not the less 
earnestly shall we protest against the principle that the 
genius of our language requires us to abstain from the 
attempt under any circumstances, and that a form of 
speech, which is natural in itself and common to all 
languages, must be sacrificed to some fancied ideal of an 
elevated style. 

S.John's Day, 1871. 


TO this edition has been added a reprint (p. 269 sq.) 
of three articles which appeared in the Guardian 
newspaper on the last petition of the Lord's Prayer. 
Their appearance here in their existing form seems to 
require a few words of explanation. The articles were 
called forth by a pamphlet published by the late Canon 
Cook 1 , criticizing the translation of this petition which 
had been adopted in the Revised Version. The Bishop 
intended to rewrite the articles entirely, adding further 
evidence in support of the rendering which he maintains 
to be correct. Thus recast, the articles were to have been 
published together with the dissertation on eVtovVtos (p. 
217 sq.), and dissertations (never written) upon other points 
of critical interest in the Lord's Prayer. This design he did 

1 Deliver us from Evil. A Protest against the Change in the Last 
Petition of the Lord's Prayer adopted in the Revised Version. A 
Letter to the Bishop of London. John Murray, 1881. Canon Cook 
published a reply to these articles entitled Deliver us from Evil. A 
Second Letter to the Lord Bishop of London. Johri Murray, 1882. 


not live to carry out. In response therefore to numerous 
requests to make these articles available for reference, the 
Trustees have decided to include them in this volume; 
and it only remains for them to express their sincere regret 
that it has thus become necessary to perpetuate them in 
a form which their author never intended to be more than 

May 25, 1891. 








i. False Readings . . . . . .21 

2. Artificial distinctions created ... 36 

3. Real distinctions obliterated ... 66 

4. Faults of Grammar 89 

5. Faults of Lexicography . . . .148 

6. Treatment of Proper Names, Official 

Titles, etc .163 

7. Archaisms, Defects in the English, Errors 

of the Press, etc 189 


APPENDIX on the words riov<rios, Trepiovo-tos . . .217 

APPENDIX on the last clause in the Lord's Prayer . 269 

INDICES . . . . . . . . . .325 





MORE than two centuries had elapsed since the 
first Latin Version of the Scriptures was made, 
when the variations and errors of the Latin Bible 
began to attract the attention of students and to call 
for revision. It happened providentially, that at the 
very moment when the need was felt, the right man 
was forthcoming. In the first fifteen centuries of her 
existence the Western Church produced no Biblical 
scholar who could compare with S. Jerome in com- 
petence for so great a task. At the suggestion of his 
ecclesiastical superior, Damasus bishop of Rome, he 
undertook this work, for which many years of self- 
denying labour had eminently fitted him. 

L. R. I 


It is no part of my design to give a detailed ac- 
count of this undertaking. I wish only to remark 
that when Jerome applied himself to his task, he 
foresaw that he should expose himself to violent at- 
tacks, and that this anticipation was not disappointed 
by the result. ' Who/ he asks in his preface to the 
Gospels, the first portion of the work which he com- 
pleted, 'Who, whether learned or unlearned, when he 
takes up the volume, and finds that what he reads 
differs from the flavour he has once tasted, will not 
immediately raise his voice and pronounce me guilty 
of forgery and sacrilege, for daring to add, to change, 
to correct anything in the ancient books 1 ?' 

Again and again he defends himself against his 
antagonists. His temper, naturally irritable, was pro- 
voked beyond measure by these undeserved attacks, 
and betrayed him into language which I shall not 
attempt to defend. Thus writing to Marcella 2 he 
mentions certain 'poor creatures (homunculos) who 
studiously calumniate him for attempting to correct 
some passages in the Gospels against the autho- 
rity of the ancients and the opinion of the whole 
world.' ' I could afford to despise them,' he says, ' if 
I stood upon my rights, for a lyre is played in vain 
to an ass.' ' If they do not like the water from the 

1 Op. x. 660 (ed. Vallarsi). 

2 Epist. 28 (I. p. 133). 


purest fountain-head, let them drink of the muddy 
streams.' And after more to the same effect, he 
returns again at the close of the letter to these ' two- 
legged donkeys (bipedes asellos),' exclaiming, * Let 
them read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the time; let us 
read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the Lord 1 ; let tJitm 
consider that an accusation ought under no circum- 
stances to be received against an elder ; let us read, 
Against an elder receive not an accusation but before 
two or three witnesses ; them that sin rebuke*. Let 
them be satisfied with, It is a human saying, and 
worthy of all acceptation : let its err with the Greeks, 
that is with the Apostle who spoke in Greek, // is a 
faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation V And 
elsewhere, referring to these same detractors, he 
writes with a seventy which was not undeserved ; 
' Let them read first and despise afterward, lest they 
appear to condemn works of which they know nothing, 
not from deliberate judgment, but from the prejudice 
of hatred V ' Thus much I say in reply to my tra- 
ducers, who snap at me like dogs, maligning me in 
public and reading me in a corner, at once my ac- 

1 The reading icaipy for Kvpiy, Rom. xii. u. 

2 The omission of the clause eZ /ZTJ eirl duo 77 rpiQv 
I Tim. v. 19. 

8 The reading fodpuTrivos for Trtoros, i Tim. iii. i. 
4 Op. ix. 684. 



cusers and my defenders, seeing that they approve in 
others what they disapprove in me V 

If these attacks had been confined to personal 
enemies like Rufinus *, who were only retaliating upon 
Jerome the harsh treatment which they had received 
at his hands, his complaints would not have excited 
much sympathy. But even friends looked coldly 
or suspiciously on his noble work. His admirer, the 
great Augustine himself, wrote to deprecate an under- 
taking which might be followed by such serious re- 
sults. He illustrated his fears by reference to the 
well-known incident to which Jerome's version of the 
Book of Jonah had given occasion, as a sample of 
the consequences that might be expected to ensue. 
A certain bishop had nearly lost his flock by ven- 
turing to substitute Jerome's rendering 'hedera' for 
'cucurbita/ and could only win them back again by 
reinstating the old version which he had abandoned. 
They would not tolerate a change in an expression 
'which had been fixed by time in the feelings and 
memory of all and had been repeated through so 
many ages in succession 3 .' 

Of the changes which Jerome introduced into the 

1 Op. ix. 1408. 

2 See Hieron. Op. ir. 660, where Rufinus exclaims, 'Istud com- 
missum die quomodo emendabitur? immo, nefas quomodo expiabitur?' 
with more to the same effect. 

8 Hieron. Epist. 104 (i. 636 sq.). 


text of the New Testament, the passage quoted 
above affords sufficient illustration. In the Old 
Testament a more arduous task awaited him. The 
Latin Version which his labours were destined to 
supersede had been made from the Septuagint. He 
himself undertook to revise the text in conformity 
with the original Hebrew. It will appear strange 
to our own age that this was the chief ground of 
accusation against him. All the Greek and Latin 
Churches, it was urged, had hitherto used one and 
the same Bible ; but this bond of union would be 
dissolved by a new version made from a different 

text. Thus the utmost confusion would ensue. More- 


over, what injury might not be done to the faith of 
the weaker brethren by casting doubt on the state 
of the sacred text ? What wounds might not be 
inflicted on the pious sentiments of the believer by 
laying sacrilegious hands on language hallowed by 
long time and association ? 

But, independently of the dangerous consequences 
which might be expected, no words were too strong 
to condemn the arrogance and presumption of one 
who thus ventured to set aside the sacred text as 
it had been used by all branches and in all ages of 
the Church from the beginning. To this cruel taunt 
Jerome replied nobly : ' I do not condemn, I do not 
blame the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the 


Apostles to them all V ' I beseech you, reader, do not 
regard my labours as throwing blame on the ancients. 
Each man offers what he can for the tabernacle of 
God 2 . Some gold and silver and precious stones : 
others fine linen and purple and scarlet and blue: 
I shall hold myself happy if I have offered skins 
and goats' hair. And yet the Apostle considers 
that the more despised members are more necessary 
(i Cor. xii. 22) V 

Moreover there was a very exaggerated estimate 
of the amount of change which his revision would 
introduce. Thus Augustine, when endeavouring to 
deter him, speaks of his new translation; Jerome in 
reply tacitly corrects his illustrious correspondent, 
and calls the work a revision*. And throughout he 
holds the same guarded language : he protests that 
he has no desire to introduce change for the mere 
sake of change, and that only such alterations will 
be made as strict fidelity to the original demands. 
His object is solely to place the Hebraica veritas 
before his readers in the vernacular tongue, and to 
this object he is stedfast. 

In executing this great work, Jerome was in con- 

1 Op. IX. 6. 2 Exod. xxv. i sq. 3 Op. IX. 460. 

4 See Hieron. Epist. 104, 1. 637, for Augustine's letter ('Evangelium 
ex Graeco interpretatus es'), and Epist. 112, I. 753, for Jerome's reply 
('in Novi Testamenti emendatione '). See Dr Westcott in Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible, S.V. Vulgate, II. p. 1696. 


stant communication with Jewish rabbis, who were 
his Hebrew teachers and to whom he was much 
indebted in many ways. How great a gain this 
assistance was to his revision, and how largely after 
ages have profited by the knowledge thus brought 
to bear on the sacred text, I need hardly say. We 
may suspect (though no direct notice on this point 
is preserved) that with his contemporaries this fact 
was prominent among the counts of the indictment 
against him. At least it is certain that they set 
their faces against his substitution of the Hebrew 
text for the Septuagint version, on the ground that 
the former had been tampered with by the malignity 
and obduracy of the Jews. But, if this suspicion 
wrongs them, and they did not object to his availing 
himself of such extraneous aid, then they evinced 
greater liberality than has always been shown by 
the opponents of revision in later ages. 

Happily Jerome felt strong in the power of truth, 
and could resist alike the importunity of friends and 
the assaults of foes. His sole object was to place 
before the Latin-speaking Churches the most faithful 
representation of the actual words of the sacred text ; 
and the consciousness of this great purpose nerved 
him with a strength beyond himself. The character 
of this father will not kindle any deep affection or 
respect. We are repelled by his coarseness and want 



of refinement, by his asperity of temper, by his 
vanity and self-assertion. We look in vain for that 
transparent simplicity which is the true foundation of 
the highest saintliness. But in this instance the 
nobler instincts of the Biblical scholar triumphed over 
the baser passions of the man; and in his lifelong 
devotion to this one object of placing the Bible in its 
integrity before the Western Church, his character 
rises to true sublimity. ' I beseech you,' he writes, 
'pour out your prayers to the Lord for me, that so 
long as I am in this poor body I may write something 
acceptable to you, useful to the Church, and worthy 
of after ages. Indeed I am not moved overmuch by 
the judgments of living men: they err on the one 
side or on the other, through affection or through 
hatred V ' My voice/ he says elsewhere, ' shall never 
be silent, Christ helping me. Though my tongue be 
cut off, it shall still stammer. Let those read who 
will; let those who will not, reject 2 .' And, inspired 
with a true scholar's sense of the dignity of con- 
scientious work for its own sake irrespective of any 
striking results, after mentioning the pains which it 
has cost him to unravel the entanglement of names 
in the Books of Chronicles he recalls a famous word 
of encouragement addressed of old by Antigenidas 
the flute-player to his pupil Ismenias, whose skill had 
1 Op. ix. 1364. 2 Op. ix. 1526. 


failed to catch the popular fancy : ' Play to me and 
to the Muses/ So Jerome describes his own set 
purpose ; ' Like Ismenias I play to myself and to 
mine, if the ears of the rest are deaf V 

Thus far I have dwelt on the opposition which 
Jerome encountered on all hands, and the dauntless 
resolution with which he accomplished his task. Let 
me now say a few words on the subsequent fate of his 
revision, for this also is an instructive page in history*. 
When completed, it received no authoritative sanction. 
His patron, pope Damasus, at whose instigation he 
had undertaken the task, was dead. The successors 
of Damasus showed no favour to Jerome or to his 
work. The Old Latin still continued to be read in 
churches : it was still quoted in the writings of 
divines. Even Augustine, who after the completion 
of the task seems to have overcome his misgivings 
and speaks in praise of Jerome's work, remains 
constant to the older Version. But first one writer, 
and then another, begins to adopt the revised trans- 
lation of Jerome. Still its recognition depends on 
the caprice or the judgment of individual men. Even 
the bishops of Rome had not yet discovered that 

1 Op. ix. 1408, 'Mihimet ipsi et meis juxta Ismeniam canens, si 
aures surdae sunt ceterorum.' 

2 The history of the gradual reception of Jerome's Revision is traced 
in Kaulen's Geschichte der Vulgata, p. 190 sq. (Mainz, 1868). 


it was 'authentic.' One pope will use the Hie- 
ronymian Revision ; a second will retain the Old 
Latin ; while a third will use either indifferently, and 
a fourth will quote from the one in the Old Testa- 
ment and from the other in the New 1 . As late as 
two centuries after Jerome's time, Gregory the Great 
can still write that he intends to avail himself of 
either indifferently, as his purpose may require, since 
' the Apostolic See, over which by the grace of God 
he presides, uses both 2 .' Thus slowly, but surely, 
Jerome's revision won its way, till at length, some 
centuries after its author's death, it drove its elder 
rival out of the field, and became the one recognised 
version of the Bible throughout the Latin Churches. 


I cannot forbear to call attention in passing to the 
close parallel which these facts present to the history 
of the so-called Authorised Version. This too, like 
Jerome's revision, was undertaken amidst many mis- 

1 These statements may be verified by the quotations in Kaulen's 

2 Greg. Magn. Mor. in /<?<$., Epist. ad fin. ' Novam translationem 
dissero ; sed cum probationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem 
per testimonia assumo ; ut, quia sedes Apostolica cui Deo auctore 
praesideo utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur ' 
(Op. I. p. 6, Venet. 1768). 


givings, and, when it appeared, was received with 
coldness or criticized with severity. When the pro- 
posal for a revision was first brought forward, ' my 
Lord of London' is reported to have said that 'if 
every man's humour should be followed, there would 
be no end of translating.' The translators themselves, 
when they issue their work to the public, deprecate 
the adverse criticism which doubtless they saw very 
good reason to apprehend. Such a work as theirs, 
they say in the opening paragraph of the preface to 
the reader, 'is welcomed with suspicion instead of 
love and with emulation instead of thanks,... and if 
there be any hole left for cavil to enter (and cavil, if 
it do not find a hole, will make one), it is sure to be 
misconstrued and in danger to be condemned. This 
will easily be granted by as many as know story 
or have any experience. For, was there ever any- 
thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or 
renewing, but the same endured many a storm of 
gainsaying or opposition?' and again; 'Whosoever 
attempteth anything for the public (especially if it 
pertain to religion and to the opening and clearing 
of the Word of God) the same setteth himself upon a 
stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he 
casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by 
every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with 
men's religion in any part, meddleth with their 


custom, nay with their freehold : and though they 
find no content in that which they have, yet they 
cannot abide to hear of altering.' 

The parallel moreover extends to the circumstances 
of its reception. It seems now to be an established 
fact (so far as any fact in history which involves a com- 
prehensive negative can be regarded as established) 
that the Revised Version never received any final 
authorisation either from the ecclesiastical or from the 
civil powers : that it was not sanctioned either by the 
Houses of Parliament, or by the Houses of Convoca- 
tion, or by the King in Council. The Bishops' Bible 
still continued to be read in churches ; the Geneva 
Bible was still the familiar volume of the fireside and 
the closet 1 . Several years after the appearance of the 
Revised Version, Bishop Andrewes, though himself 
one of the revisers, still continues to quote from an 
older Bible. Yet notwithstanding all adverse circum- 

1 The printing of the Bishops' Bible was stopped as soon as the 
new revision was determined upon. The last edition of the former 
was published in 1606. The Revised Version states on its title-page 
(1611) that it is 'Appointed to be read in Churches,' but we are not 
told by whom or how it was appointed. As the copies of the Bishops' 
Bible used in the churches were worn out, they would probably be 
replaced by the Revised Version ; but this seems to have been the only 
advantage which was accorded to it. On the other hand, the Geneva 
Bible continued to be printed by the King's Printer some years after 
the appearance of the Revised Version, and was still marked ' Cum 
privilegio Regiae majestatis.' 


stances it overpowered both its rivals by the force of 
superior merit. It was found to be, as one had said 
long before of Jerome's revision, ' et verborum tena- 
cior et perspicuitate sententiae clarior 1 '; and this was 
the secret of its success. * Thus,' writes Dr Westcott, 
'at the very time when the monarchy and the Church 
were, as it seemed, finally overthrown, the English 
people by their silent and unanimous acceptance of 
the new Bible gave a spontaneous testimony to the 
principles of order and catholicity of which both were 
an embodiment.' ' A revision, which embodied the 
ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed 
to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, 
gained by its own internal character a vital authority 
which could never have been secured by any edict 
of sovereign rulers 2 .' 

But the parallel may be carried a step further. 
In both these cases alike, as we have seen, God's law 
of progressive improvement, which in animal and 
vegetable life has been called the principle of natural 
selection, was vindicated here, so that the inferior 
gradually disappeared before the superior in the same 
kind: but in both cases also the remnants of an 
earlier Bible held and still hold their ground, as a 
testimony to the past. As in parts of the Latin 

1 Isidor. Hispal. Etym. Vi. 4; comp. de Off. Eccl. i. 12. 

2 History of the English Bible, pp. 158, 160. 


Service-books the Vulgate has not even yet displaced 
the Old Latin, which is still retained either in its 
pristine or in its partially amended form ; so also in 
our own Book of Common Prayer an older Version 
still maintains its place in the Psalter and in the 
occasional sentences, as if to keep before our eyes 
the progressive history of our English Bible. 


All history is a type, a parable. The hopes and 
the misgivings, the failures and the successes, of the 
past reproduce themselves in the present ; and it 
appeared to me that at this crisis, when a revision 
of our English Bible is imminent, we might with 
advantage study the history of that revised transla- 
tion, which alone among Biblical Versions can bear 
comparison with our own in its circulation and in- 

And, first of all, in the gloomy forebodings which 
have ushered in this scheme for a new revision, we 
seem to hear the very echo of those warning voices, 
which happily fell dead on the ear of the resolute 
Jerome. The alarming consequences, which some 
anticipate from any attempt to meddle with our 
time-honoured Version, have their exact counterpart 
in the apprehensions by which his contemporaries 


sought to deter him. The danger of estranging 
diverse Churches and congregations at present united 
in the acceptance of a common Bible, and the danger 
of perplexing the faith of individual believers by 
suggesting to them variations of text and uncer- 
tainties of interpretation these are now, as they 
were then, the twin perils by which it is sought to 
scare the advocates of revision. 

Moreover there is the like exaggerated estimate 
of the amount of change which any body of revisers 
would probably introduce. To this we can only give 
the same answer as Jerome. Not translation, but 
revision, is the object of all who have promoted this 
new movement. There is no intention of snapping 
the thread of history by the introduction of a new 
version. Our English Bible owes its unrivalled merits 
to the principle of revision ; and this principle it is 
proposed once more to invoke. ' To whom ever/ say 
the authors of our Received Version, ' was it imputed 
for a failing (by such as were wise) to go over that 
which he had done and to amend it where he saw 
cause?' 'Truly, good Christian reader, we never 
thought from the beginning that we should need to 
make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a 
good one... but to make a good one better... that hath 
been our endeavour, that our mark/ 

Nor again will the eminence of antagonists deter 


the promoters of this movement, if they feel that they 
have truth on their side. Augustine was a greater 
theologian, as well as a better man, than Jerome. But 
in this matter he was treading on alien ground : he 
had not earned the right to speak. On the other 
hand, a life-long devotion to the study of the Biblical 
text in the original languages had rilled Jerome with 
the sense alike of the importance of the work and of 
the responsibility of his position. He could not be 
deterred by the fears of any adversaries, however good 
and however able. He felt the iron hand of a strong 
necessity laid upon him, and he could not choose but 
open out to others the stores of Scriptural wealth 
which he himself had been permitted to amass. 

And again, we may take courage from the results 
which followed from his design, dauntlessly and 
persistently carried out. None of the perilous con- 
sequences, which friend and foe alike had foreboded, 
did really ensue. There was indeed a long interval 
of transition, during which the rival versions contended 
for supremacy ; but no weakening of individual faith, 
no alienation of Churches, can be traced to this source. 
The great schism of the Church, the severance of East 
and West, was due to human passion and prejudice, 
to fraud and self-will and ambition. History does 
not mention any relaxation of the bonds of union as 
the consequence of Jerome's work. On the contrary, 


the Vulgate has been a tower of strength to the Latin 
Churches, as Jerome foresaw that it would be. He 
laboured for conscience sake, more than content if 
his work proved acceptable to one or two intimate 
friends ; he sought not the praise of men ; his own 
generation viewed his labours with suspicion or hatred; 
and he has been rewarded with the universal grati- 
tude of after ages. 

Nor is it uninstructive to observe that the very 
point on which his contemporaries laid the greatest 
stress in their charges against him, has corne to be 
regarded by ourselves as his most signal merit. To 
him we owe it, that in the Western Churches the 
Hebrew original, and not the Septuagint Version, is 
the basis of the people's Bible ; and that a broad and 
indelible line has been drawn once for all between the 
Canon of the Old Testament as known to the Hebrew 
nation, and the later accretions which had gathered 
about it in the Greek and Latin Bibles. Thus we are 
reaping the fruits of his courage and fidelity. We are 
the proper heirs of his labours. The Articles of the 
Church of England still continue to quote S. Jerome's 
authority for the distinction between the Canonical 
and Apocryphal books, which the Council of Trent 
did its best to obscure. 

But there is yet another lesson to be learned from 
the history of Jerome's revision. The circumstances 
L. R. 2 


of its reception are full of instruction and encourage- 
ment. It owed nothing, as we have seen, to official 
sanction ; it won its way by sterling merit. Now let 
us suppose that the revision, which we are about to 
undertake, is successfully accomplished. How are 
we to deal with it ? If the work commends itself 
at once to all or to a large majority as superior to 
the present Version, then let it by all means be 
substituted by some formal authorisation. But this 
is quite too much to expect. Though S. Jerome's 
revision was incomparably better than the Old Latin, 
though the superiority of our received English Version 
to its predecessors is allowed on all hands, no such 
instantaneous welcome was accorded to either. They 
had to run the gauntlet of adverse criticism ; they 
fought their way to acceptance inch by inch. I 
suppose that no one who takes part in this new 
revision is so sanguine as to hope that his work 
will be more tenderly treated. This being so, it 
does not seem to be necessary, and it is perhaps 
not even advisable, that the new Revised Version, 
if successfully completed, should at once authori- 
tatively displace the old. Only let it not be 
prohibited. Give it a fair field, and a few years will 
decide the question of superiority. I do not myself 
consider it a great evil, that for a time two concurrent 
Versions should be in use. This at least seems a 


simple practical solution, unless indeed there should 
be such an immediate convergence of opinion in 
favour of the revised Version, as past experience does 
not encourage us to expect. 


But let it be granted that the spectres, which a 
timid apprehension calls into being, are scared away 
by the light of history and experience, and that the 
dangerous consequences of revision are shown to be 
imaginary; we have still to ask, whether there is suffi- 
cient reason for undertaking such a work, or (in other 
words) whether the defects of the existing Version 
are such as to call for systematic amendment? Here 
again we are met by the same objection, of which our 
translators were obliged to take notice : ' Many men's 
mouths/ they write, 'have been open a good while 
(and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the 
translation so long in hand... and ask what may be 
the reason, what the necessity of the employment : 
Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this 
while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with 
leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, 
her milk with lime ?' 

In addressing myself to this question, I cannot 
attempt to give an exhaustive answer. Materials for 

2 2 


such an answer will be found scattered up and down 
biblical commentaries and other exegetical works 1 . 
In Archbishop Trench's instructive volume On the 
Authorized Version of the New Testament, published 
a few years ago, they are gathered into a focus ; and 
quite recently, in anticipation of the impending re- 
vision, Bishop Ellicott has stated the case concisely, 
giving examples of different classes of errors which 
call for correction. For a fuller justification of the 
advocates of revision I would refer to these and simi- 
lar works, confining myself to a few more prominent 
points, in which our Version falls behind the know- 
ledge of the age, and offering some examples in 
illustration of each. While doing so, I shall be led 
necessarily to dwell almost exclusively on the defects 
of our English Bible, and to ignore its merits. But 
I trust it will be unnecessary for me on this account 
to deprecate adverse criticism. No misapprehension 
is more serious or more unjust than the assumption 
that those who advocate revision are blind to the 
excellence of the existing Version. It is the very 
sense of this excellence which prompts the desire 
to make an admirable instrument more perfect. On 
the other hand, they cannot shut their eyes to the 

1 For the literature of the subject, see Professor Plumptre's interest- 
ing article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, S.V. Version, Authorized, 
p. 1679. 


fact that the assiduous labours of scholars and divines 
during two centuries and a half have not been fruit- 
less, and they are naturally anxious to pour into the 
treasury of the temple these accumulated gains of 
many generations. 


And first of all let us boldly face the fact that 
the most important changes, in which a revision may 
result, will be due to the variations of reading in the 
Greek text. It was not the fault, it was the misfor- 
tune, of the scholars from Tyndale downward, to 
whom we owe our English Bible, that the only text 
accessible to them was faulty and corrupt. I need 
not take up time in recapitulating the history of the 
received text, which will be known to all. It is suf- 
ficient to state that all textual critics are substantially 
agreed on this point, though they may differ among 
themselves as to the exact amount of change which 
it will be necessary to introduce. 

No doubt, when the subject of various readings 
is mentioned, grave apprehensions will arise in the 
minds of some persons. But this is just the case 
where more light is wanted to allay the fears which 
a vague imagination excites. The recent language 
of alarmists on this point seems incredible to those 


who have paid any attention to the subject. I can 
only state my own conviction that a study of the 
history and condition of the Greek text solves far 
more difficulties than it creates. More especially it 
brings out the, fact of the very early and wide diffu- 
sion of the New Testament writings with a clearness 
and a cogency which is irresistible, and thus bears 
most important testimony to their genuineness and 
integrity. Even the variations themselves have the 
highest value in this respect. Thus for instance 
when we find that soon after the middle of the second 
century divergent readings of a striking kind occur 
in S. John's Gospel, as for instance fjuovo^evr)^ eo? 
and o fJLovoyvrj<; vio<s (i. 1 8), we are led to the con- 
clusion that the text has already a history and that 
the Gospel therefore cannot have been very recent. 
This evidential value of textual criticism moreover 
shows itself in other ways. I will select one instance, 
which has always appeared to me very instructive as 
illustrating the results of this study apparently so 
revolutionary in its methods, and yet really so con- 
servative in its ends. 

The Epistle to the Ephesians, after having been 
received by churches and individuals alike (so far 
as we know) without a single exception from the 
earliest times, as the unquestioned work of the Apostle 
whose name it bears, has been challenged in our 


own generation. Now there is one formidable argu- 
ment, and one only, against its genuineness. It is 
urged with irresistible force that S. Paul could not 
have written in this strain to a Church in which he 
had resided for some three years and with which he 
lived on the closest and most affectionate terms. So 
far as regards reference to persons or incidents, this 
is quite the most colourless of all S. Paul's Epistles ; 
whereas we should expect to find it more full and 
definite in its allusions than any other, except per- 
haps the letters to Corinth. To this objection no 
satisfactory answer can be given without the aid of 
textual criticism. But from textual criticism we learn 
that an intelligent and well-informed though hereti- 
cal writer of the second century called it an Epistle 
to the Laodiceans ; that in the opening verse the 
words 'in Ephesus' are wanting in the two oldest 
extant Greek MSS ; that the most learned of the 
Greek fathers in the middle of the third century 
himself a textual critic had not the words in his 
copy or copies ; and that another learned Greek 
father in the middle of the fourth century declares 
them to be absent from the oldest manuscripts not 
to mention other subsidiary notices tending in the 
same direction. Putting these facts together, we get 
a complete answer to the objection. The Epistle is 
found to be a circular letter, addressed probably to 


the Churches of Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus 
was one and Laodicea another. From Ephesus, as 
the metropolis, it derived its usual title, because the 
largest number of copies in circulation would be de- 
rived from the autograph sent thither; but here and 
there a copy was extant in early times addressed to 
some other Church (as Laodicea, for instance); and 
still more commonly copies existed taken from some 
MS in which the blank for the name of the Church 
had not been filled up. This circular character of 
the letter fully explains the absence of personal or 
historical allusions. Thus textual criticism in this 
instance removes our difficulty ; but its services do 
not end here. It furnishes a body of circumstantial 
evidence which, I venture to think, must ultimately 
carry irresistible conviction as to the authorship of 
the letter, though for the present some are found to 
hesitate. For these facts supplied by textual criticism 
connect themselves with the mention of the letter 
which the Colossians are charged to get from Lao- 
dicea (Col. iv. 1 6), and this mention again combines 
with the strong resemblances of matter and diction, 
so as to bind these two epistles inseparably together: 
while again the Epistle to the Colossians is linked 
not less indissolubly with the letter to Philemon by 
the references to person and place and circumstance. 
Thus the three Epistles form a compact whole, to 


resist the assaults of adverse criticism. A striking 
amount of undesigned coincidence is gathered to- 
gether from the most diverse quarters, converging 
unmistakably to one result. And the point to be 
observed is, that many of these coincident elements 
are not found in the Epistles themselves, but in the 
external history of the text, a circumstance which 
gives them a far higher evidential value. For even if 
it were possible to imagine a forger in an uncritical 
age at once able to devise a series of artifices so 
subtle and so complex, as on the supposition of the 
spuriousness of one or all of these letters we are 
obliged to assume, and willing to defeat his own 
purpose by tangling a skein which it would require 
the critical education of the nineteenth century to 
unravel; yet there would remain the still greater 
improbability that a man in such a position could 
have exercised an effective control over external 
circumstances the diffusion and the subsequent 
history of his forgeries such as this hypothesis 
would suppose. 

This instance will illustrate my meaning, when I 
alluded to the conservative action of textual criti- 
cism ; for such I conceive to be its general tendency. 
But in fact the consideration of consequences ought 
not to weigh with us, in a matter where duty is so 
obvious. It must be our single aim to place the 


Bible in its integrity before the people of Christ ; and, 
so long as we sincerely follow the truth, we can afford 
to leave the consequences in God's hands: and I 
cannot too strongly urge the truism (for truism it is) 
that the higher value we set on the Bible as being or 
as containing the Word of God, the greater (if we 
are faithful to our trust) will be our care to ascertain 
the exact expressions of the original by the aid of all 
the critical resources at our command. We have 
seen that S. Jerome's courage was chiefly tried in the 
substitution of a purer text, and that his fidelity 
herein has been recognised as his greatest claim to 
the gratitude of after ages. The work, which our 
new revisers will be required to execute, is far less 
revolutionary than his. Where his task required him 
to substitute a wholly new text in the Old Testa- 
ment, they will only be required to cancel or to 
change a word or expression, or in rare cases a 
verse, here and there in the New. Where he was 
faithful in great things, we may trust that they will 
not be faithless in small. 

The question therefore is not one of policy, but 
of truth. Yet still it is well to face the probable 
results ; because apprehension is especially alive on 
this point, and because only by boldly confronting 
the spectres of a vague alarm can we hope to lay 


Let us then first of all set it down as an unmixed 
gain that we shall rid ourselves of an alliance which 
is a constant source of weakness and perplexity to 
us. No more serious damage can be done to a true 
cause, than by summoning in its defence a witness 
who is justly suspected or manifestly perjured. Yet 
this is exactly the attitude which the verse relating 
to the Heavenly witnesses (i John v. 7) bears towards 
the great doctrine which it proclaims, so long as it 
retains a place in the Bible which we put into the 
hands of the people. Shortly after the question of 
revision was first mooted, an article on the subject 
appeared in a popular daily paper, in which the 
writer, taking occasion to refer to this verse, com- 
mitted himself to two statements respecting it : first, 
that the passage in question had done much towards 
promoting the belief in the doctrine which it puts 
forward ; and secondly that the interpolator knew well 
what he was about and used very efficient means to 
gain his end. Now both these statements were evi- 
dently made in good faith by the writer and would, 
I suppose, be accepted as true by a very large 
number of his readers. But those, who have given any 
special attention to the subject, know that neither 
will bear examination. The first contradicts the plain 
facts of history; the second militates against the 
most probable inferences of criticism. As regards 


the first point, it seems unquestionable that the 
doctrine was formally defined and firmly established 
some time before the interpolation appeared. A 
study of history shows that the Church arrived at 
the Catholic statement of. the doctrine of the Trinity, 
partly because it was indicated in other passages of 
the New Testament (e.g. Matt, xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 
14), and partly because it was the only statement 
which, recognising the fact of the Incarnation of the 
Divine Word, was found at once to satisfy the in- 
stincts of a devout belief and the requirements of a 
true philosophy ; and that the text in question had 
not, and could not have, anything to do with its 
establishment. Indeed the very fact that it is no- 
where quoted by the great controversial writers of the 
fourth and fifth centuries has been truly regarded 
as the strongest evidence against its genuineness. 
And in more recent times, when the doctrine began 
to be challenged, the text was challenged also ; so 
that at this stage the doctrine did not gain, but 
lose, by the advocacy of a witness whose questionable 
character threw discredit upon it. Again, the second 
statement equally breaks down when investigated. 
Textual criticism shows that the clause containing 
the Three Heavenly Witnesses was not in the first 
instance a deliberate forgery, but a comparatively 
innocent gloss, which put a directly theological in- 


terpretation on the three genuine witnesses of S. John 
the spirit and the water and the blood a gloss 
which is given substantially by S. Augustine and was 
indicated before by Origen and Cyprian, and which 
first thrust itself into the text in some Latin MSS, 
where it betrays its origin, not only by its varieties of 
form, but also by the fact that it occurs sometimes 
before and sometimes after the mention of the three 
genuine witnesses which it was intended to explain. 
Thus both these statements alike break down, and we 
see no ground for placing this memorable verse in 
the same category with such fictions as the False 
Decretals, whether we regard its origin or its results ; 
for unlike them it was not a deliberate forgery, and 
unlike them also it did not create a dogma. I only 
quote this criticism to show how much prejudice may 
be raised against the truth by the retention of inter- 
polations like this ; nor can we hold ourselves free 
from blame, if such statements are made and ac- 
cepted, so long as we take no steps to eject from our 
Bibles an intrusive passage, against which external 
and internal evidence alike have pronounced a deci- 
sive verdict. In this instance our later English Bibles 
have retrograded from the more truthful position of 
the earlier. In Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and the Great 
Bibles the spurious words are placed in brackets and 
printed in a different type, and thus attention is 


directed to their suspicious character. In Luther's 
German Translation (in its original form), as also in 
the Zurich Latin Bible of 1543, they were omitted. 
In the Geneva Testament first, so far as I am aware, 
and in the Bishops' Bible after it, the example was 
set, which the translators of our Authorised Version 
unhappily followed, of dispensing with these marks 
of doubtful genuineness and printing the passage 
uniformly with the context. 

In other doctrinal passages where important 
various readings occur, the solution will not be so 
simple; but in doubtful cases the margin may use- 
fully be employed. Altogether the instances in which 
doctrine is directly or indirectly involved are very 
few ; and, though individual texts might be altered, 
the balance of doctrinal statement would probably 
not be disturbed by the total result, a change in one 
direction being compensated by a change in the 
other. Thus for instance, if the reading 'God was 
manifest in the flesh' should have to give place to 
'Who was manifest in the flesh' in I Tim. iii. 16, and 
retire to the margin, yet on the other hand the 
' Only-begotten God ' would seem to have equal or 
superior claims to 'the Only-begotten Son' in John 
i. 1 8, and must either supersede it or claim a place 
side by side with it. 

The passages, which touch Christian sentiment or 


history or morals, and which are affected by textual 
differences, though less rare than the former, are still 
very few. Of these the pericope of the woman taken 
in adultery holds the first place in importance. In 
this case a deference to the most ancient authorities, 
as well as a consideration of internal evidence, might 
seem to involve immediate loss. The best solution 
would probably be to place the passage in brackets, 
for the purpose of showing, not indeed that it contains 
an untrue narrative (for, whencesoever it comes, it 
seems 'to bear on its face the highest credentials 
of authentic history), but that evidence external and 
internal is against its being regarded as an integral 
portion of the original Gospel of S. John. The close 
of S. Mark's Gospel should possibly be treated in the 
same way. If I might venture a conjecture, I should 
say that both the one and the other were due to that 
knot of early disciples who gathered about S. John in 
Asia Minor and must have preserved more than one 
true tradition of the Lord's life and of the earliest 
days of the Church, of which some at least had them- 
selves been eye-witnesses 1 . 

Again in S. Luke's Gospel it might be right 

1 The account of the woman taken in adultery is known to have 
been related by Papias, a disciple of this school, early in the second 
century, who also speaks of the Gospel of S. Mark. Euseb. H. E. 
iii. 39. 


to take account of certain remarkable omissions in 
some texts, and probably in these cases a marginal 
note would be the best solution. Such for instance 
are the words addressed to James and John, ix. 55, 
' Ye know not of what spirit ye are,' or the agony in 
the garden, xxii. 43, 44, or the solemn words on the 
Cross, xxiii. 34. It seems impossible to believe that 
these incidents are other than authentic ; and as the 
text of S. Luke's Gospel is perhaps exceptional in 
this respect (for the omissions in S. John's Gospel 
are of a different kind), the solution will suggest 
itself, that the Evangelist himself may have issued 
two separate editions. This conjecture will be con- 
firmed by observing that in the second treatise of 
S. Luke similar traces of two editions are seen where 
the passages omitted in many texts, though not im- 
portant in themselves (e.g. xxviii. 16, 29), bear equal 
evidence of authenticity, and are entirely free from 
suspicion on the ground that they were inserted to 
serve any purpose devotional or doctrinal. 

On the other hand some passages, where the ex- 
ternal testimony is equivocal or adverse, are open to 
suspicion, because the origin of or the motive for the 
insertions or alterations lies on the surface. Thus 
in S. Luke ii. 33 'His father' is altered into 'Joseph,' 
and ten verses later 'Joseph and His mother* is 
substituted for 'His parents,' evidently because the 


transcriber was alarmed lest the doctrine of the 
Incarnation might be imperilled by such language 
an alarm not entertained by the Evangelist himself, 
whose own narrative directly precluded any false 
inference, and who therefore could use the popular 
language without fear of misapprehension. And 
again the mention of 'fasting' in connexion with 
praying in not less than four passages (Matt xvii. 21, 
Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, I Cor. vii. 5), in all of 
which it is rejected by one or more of the best 
editors, shows an ascetic bias ; though indeed there 
is ample sanction elsewhere in the New Testament 
for the practice which it was thus sought to enforce 
more strongly. Again, allowance must be made for 
the influence of liturgical usage in such passages as 
the doxology to the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13; 
and a similar explanation may be given of the 
insertion of the eunuch's confession of faith pre- 
paratory to baptism, Acts viii. 37. And again, 
when a historical difficulty is avoided by a various 
reading, this should be taken into account, as in 
Mark i. I, where indeed the substitution of eV T&> 
'H<rafa TO> TrpotpTJTrj for the common reading eV rofc 
7rpo<f)r)Tai,s would introduce a difficulty the same in 
kind but less in magnitude than already exists in the 
received text of Matt, xxvii. 9. Or lastly, the desire 
to bring out the presence of a supernatural agency 
L. R. 3 


may have had its influence in procuring the insertion 
of the words describing the descent of the angel in 
John v. 3, 4. On the other hand, in some cases these 
considerations of internal probability favour the exist- 
ing text, where external evidence taken alone might 
lead to a different result, as in I Cor. xv. 51, where 
the received reading Traz/Te? ov Ko^rjOrjao/jLeOa, Traz/re? 
a, is so recommended against vrai/re? 
, ov Trdvres Be d\\a^7]o-6^0a. 
I believe that I have not only indicated (so far 
as my space allows) the really important classes of 
various readings, but given the most prominent illus- 
trations in each instance. The whole number of 
such readings indeed is small, and only a very few 
remain after the examples already brought forward. 
On the other hand, variations of a subordinate kind 
are more numerous. These occur more frequently 
in the Gospels than elsewhere, arising out of the 
attempt to supplement one Evangelical narrative by 
the insertion of a word or a clause from another, or 
to bring the one into literal conformity with the other 
by substitution or correction ; but no considerations 
of moment are involved in the rectification of such 
passages. It is very rarely indeed that a various 
reading of this class rises to the interest of Matt. xix. 
17 TL fj>6 epforas jrepl TOV djaOov (compared with 
Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19); and for the most part 


they are wholly unimportant as regards any doctrinal 
or practical bearing. 

The same motive which operates so powerfully 
in the Gospels will also influence, though in a far 
less degree, the text of those Epistles which are 
closely allied to each other, as for instance the 
Romans and Galatians, or the Ephesians and Colos- 
sians, and will be felt moreover in isolated parallel 
passages elsewhere ; but for the most part the cor- 
ruptions in the Epistles are due to the carelessness 
of scribes, or to their officiousness exercised on the 
grammar or the style. The restoration of the best 
supported reading is in almost every instance a 
gain, either as establishing a more satisfactory con- 
nexion of sentences, or as substituting a more forcible 
expression for a less forcible (e.g. irapaftoXevardfjLevos 
for 7rapa(3ov\evcrdtJLevo<;, Phil. ii. 30), or in other ways 
giving point to the expression and bringing out a 
better and clearer sense (e.g. Rom. iv. 19 /carevorjcrev 
TO eavTov o- &>//-. Be rrjv Trayye\iav rov eoy ov 
Si6/cpL0r), for ov tcarevorjo-ev K. r. X., where the point is 
that Abraham did fully recognise his own condition 
and notwithstanding was not staggered ; or 2 Cor. 
i. 2O ev avraj TO val, Bio teal Si avrov TO a/j,rjv K. T. \., 
where val denotes the fulfilment of the promise on 
the part of God, and a^v the recognition and thanks- 
giving on the part of the Church, a distinction which 



is obliterated by the received reading eV avTO) TO val 
ical ev avTw TO dfjiijv ; or 2 Cor. xii. I Kav^da-Oat Set, 
ov (rv}i<f)epov fjuev, l\evaon,ai Se K. T. X., where the com- 
mon text Kdv^aaQai &rj ov av/j,(f)ep6i, JJLOI,, e\evo-ofjLai> 
yap K. T. X. is feeble in comparison). It is this very 
fact, that the reading of the older authorities almost 
always exhibits some improvement in the sense (even 
though the change may be unimportant in itself) 
which gives us the strongest assurance of their trust- 
worthiness as against the superior numbers of the 
more recent copies. 

Altogether it may be safely affirmed that the 
permanent value of the new revision will depend in 
a great degree on the courage and fidelity with which 
it deals with questions of readings. If the signs 
of the times may be trusted, the course which is 
most truthful will also be most politic. To be con- 
servative, it will be necessary to be adequate: for 
no revision which fails to deal fairly with these 
textual problems, can be lasting. Here also the 
example of S. Jerome is full of encouragement. 


From errors in the Greek text which our transla- 
tors used, we may pass on to faults of actual trans- 
lation. And here I will commence with one class 


which is not unimportant in itself, and which claims 
to be considered first, because the translators have 
dwelt at some length on the matter and attempted to 
justify their mode of proceeding. I refer to the vari- 
ous renderings of the same word or words, by which 
artificial distinctions are introduced in the translation, 
which have no place in the original. This is perhaps 
the only point in which they proceed deliberately on 
a wrong principle. 'We have not tied ourselves/ 
they say in the preface. ' to an uniformity of phrasing 
or to an identity of words.' They plead that such 
a course would savour 'more of curiosity than wis- 
dom,' and they allege the quaint reason, that they 
might 'be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal 
dealing towards a great number of English words,' 
if they adopted one to the exclusion of another, as 
a rendering of the same Greek equivalent. Now, if 
they had restricted themselves within proper limits 
in the use of this liberty, no fault could have been 
found with this vindication. But, when the transla- 
tion of the same word is capriciously varied in the 
same paragraph, and even in the same verse, a false 
effect is inevitably produced, and the connexion will 
in some cases be severed, or the reader more or less 
seriously misled in other ways. To what extent they 
have thus attempted to improve upon the original by 
introducing variety, the following examples, though 


they might be multiplied many times, will suffice to 

Why, for instance, should we read in Matt, xviii. 33 
' Should est not thou also have had compassion (eXefjaai) 
on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity (tfXerjcra) on 
thee?'; or in xx. 20 'Then came to him the mother of 
Zebedee's children (viwv) with her sons (uio5z/)'; or in 
xxv. 32 ' He shall separate (dfopiel) them one from 
another, as a shepherd divideth (afyopl&i) his sheep 
from the goats'? Why in S. John xvi. i, 4, 6, should 
Tavra \e\d\rjfca v/j,w be rendered in three different ways 
in the same paragraph ; * These things have I spoken 
unto you,' ' These things have I told you/ ' I have 
said these things unto you ' ; or S. Thomas be made 
to say, l Put my finger,' and ' Thrust my hand,' in the 
same verse, though the same Greek word /3aXo> stands 
for both (xx. 25)? Why again in the Acts (xxvi. 24, 
25) should Festus cry, ' Paul, thou art beside thyself 
(fjiaivrj, IlaOXe), and S. Paul reply, ' I am not mad, 
most noble Festus' (ov fjaivojuu, tcpdno-Te ^^o-re)? 
Why in the Epistle to the Romans (x. 15) should ol 
TroSe? Ttovevayye^^o/jLevwv elprjvrjv, TV vayy6\i%ofj,eva)v 
ra dyaQd be translated 'the feet of them tin& preach 
the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good 
things'? Why in the same epistle (xv. 4, 5) should 
we read, 'That we through patience and comfort of 
the Scriptures (Bid 7^5 fa&JWffc ical rrjs irapaK\ij crews 


TOJV vpa<t><joi>) might have hope,' and in the next sen- 
tence, 'Now the God of patience and consolation (6 
6o? r^5 vTTOfjLovfj? KOLi T?$9 7rapaK\r]<rea)<>) grant you to 
be likeminded/ though the words are identical in the 
two clauses, and the repetition is obviously intended 
by S. Paul ? And why again in the salutations at 
the end of this epistle, as also of others, should aaird- 
craa-Oe be translated now ' salute ' and now ' greet/ the 
two renderings being interchanged capriciously and 
without any law ? Again in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, iii. 17, the same word fyOeipew is dif- 
ferently translated, * If any man defile (<f)0elpei) the 
temple of God, him shall God destroy ((f>OepeT)' though 
the force of the passage depends on the identity of 
the sin and the punishment. And in a later passage 
(x. 1 6 sq.) KOivwvol TOV Ovo-iavTrjpiov is translated 'par- 
takers of the altar/ and two verses below icoivwvol TWV 
Saipovitov 'have fellowship with devils/ while (to com- 
plete the confusion) in a preceding and a succeeding 
verse the rendering ' be partakers ' is assigned to 
^e/, and in the same paragraph KowwvLa TOV 
TOV <rew^aT09, is translated ' communion of the blood, of 
the body.' The exigencies of the English might de- 
mand some slight variation of rendering here, but this 
utter confusion is certainly not required ; and yet this 
passage is only a sample of what occurs in number- 
less other places. Again in the same epistle (xii. 


4 sq.) it is not easy to see why &iat,peo-i,<; 
Siaipeaeis SICLKOVLUV, Siaipea-ei? evepyrj/j.drmv, are trans- 
lated respectively * diversities of gifts/ ' differences of 
administration,' 'diversities of operations/ while in 
the same passage evepyijuaTa is rendered first 'opera- 
tions'' and then 'working? Each time I read the 
marvellous episode on charity in the xiiith chapter, I 
feel with increased force the inimitable delicacy and 
beauty and sublimity of the rendering, till I begin to 
doubt whether the English language is not a better 
vehicle than even the Greek for so lofty a theme ; yet 
even here I find some blemishes of this kind. Thus 
in the 8th verse the same English word ' fail ' is given 
as a rendering for both eKTriTrrew and KarapyeiaOai,, 
while conversely the same Greek word /caTapyelcrdat is 
translated first by 'fail' and then by 'vanish away I and 
two verses afterwards, where it occurs again, by a 
third expression 'be done away.' This word Karap<yelv 
is translated with the same latitude later on also (xv. 
24, 26), ' When he shall have put down (tcaTapyijo-y) 
all rule and all authority and power,' and immediately 
afterwards, 'The last enemy that shall be destroyed 
(KarapyelTcu) is death/ Let me add another instance 
from this epistle, for it is perhaps the most character- 
istic of all. In xv. 27, 28 the word vTrordacreiv occurs 
six times in the same sense within two verses; in 
the first three places it is rendered 'put under I in 


the fourth 'be subdued? in the fifth 'be subject? while in 
the last place the translators return again to their 
first rendering * put wider' Nay, even the simple 
word \oyla when it occurs in successive verses (xvi. 
i, 2) has a different rendering, first 'collection' and 
then 'gathering! 

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is espe- 
cially remarkable for the recurrence through whole 
sentences or paragraphs, of the same word or words, 
which thus strike the key-note to the passage. This 
fact is systematically disregarded by our translators 
who, impressed with the desire of producing what 
they seem to have regarded as an agreeable variety, 
failed to see that in such cases monotony is force. 
Thus in the 1st chapter the words Trapa/cakeiv, irapd- 
K\7)a-Ls, and 6\{j3ei,v, O'Xtyis, occur again and again. 
In the rendering of the first our translators are 
divided between 'comfort' and 'consolation' and of the 
second between ' tribulation,' ' trouble? and ' affliction.' 
Again in the opening of the second chapter, where 
the tone is given to the paragraph by the frequent 
repetition of \v7rrj, \vTrelv, we have three distinct 
renderings, 'heaviness,' 'sorrow,' 'grief.' Again in the 
third chapter several instances of this fault occur. 
In the first verse this passion for variety is curiously 
illustrated. They render a-varaTiicwv eVio-roXcSz/ TT/DO? 
77 ef vfAwv avo-ranicwv by * Epistles of commenda- 


tion to you, or letters of commendation from you,' 
where even in supplying a word (which were better 
left out altogether) they make a change, though in 
the original the adjectives refer to the same substan- 
tive. In this same chapter again they hover between 
' sufficient 1 and 'able* as a rendering of i/cavos, iicavovv, 
iKavQ-rt]^ (w. 5, 6), while later on they interchange 
'abolish' and 'done away' for /carapyeiaOai (vv. 7, 13, 14), 
and fail to preserve the connexion of dvaKKa\v^eva) 
(ver. 1 8) with KaXv^a (ver. 13 sq.) and avaica\v7rT6- 
fj,evov (ver. 14), and of /ce/caXvp/jievov (iv. 3) with all 
three. Again in the fifth chapter evBr^fieiv is ren- 
dered in the same context ' to be at home ' and ' to be 
present' (vv. 6, 8, 9), where the former rendering more- 
over in ver. 6 obscures the direct opposition to efcSrj- 
fjietv, this last word being rendered throughout ' to be 
absent'-, and a little later (ver. 10) TOJ)? Travras tj/jid<; 
4>avpa)0rjvai, K. T. X. is translated ' We must all appear 
before the judgment seat of Christ/ where, indepen- 
dently of the fatal objection that 'appear' gives a 
wrong sense (for the context lays stress on the mani- 
festation of men's true characters at the great day), 
this rendering is still further faulty, as severing the 
connexion with what follows immediately (ver. n), 
' We are made manifest (TrecfravepufjieOa) unto God, and 
I trust also are made manifest (7r<f>avepa0ai) in your 
consciences.' Again in vii. 7 'consolation' and 'comfort* 


are once more interchanged for 7rapa/ca\e1v, 
o-t?; in viii. 10, n, 12, TO 6e\eiv is translated 'to be for- 
ward' and 'to will,' and TrpoOv^La 'readiness* and 'a will- 
ing" mind' in successive verses ; in ix. 2, 3, 4, 5, 'ready* 
and 'prepared' are both employed in rendering Trap- 
ea/cevacTTai,, Trapecr/ceuaoy-te^ot, dTrapao-Kevdarov?, while 
conversely the single expression 'be ready' is made to 
represent both irapea/cevaa'Tat, and eroi^rfv elvat ; in 
x. 13, 15, 1 6, /cavatv, after being twice translated 'rule] 
is varied in the third passage by '//;**'; in xi. 1 6, 
17, 1 8 the rendering of Kav^aaOai, /cav^o-i? is di- 
versified by 'boast' and * glory ' \ and in xii. 2, 3 owe 
oZSa, 6 Beo? oZSei/, is twice translated ' I cannot tell, God 
knowethl while elsewhere in these same verses oZ&a is 
rendered ' I knew I and OVK olSa, ' I cannot tell? This 
repugnance to repeating the same word for olSa has a 
parallel in John xvi. 30, where vvv ol'Sa/zez/ on ol$a$ 
Trdvra is given * Ngw are we sure that thou knowest 
all things.' 

Nor is there any improvement in the later books, 
as the following instances, taken almost at random from 
a very large number which might have been adduced, 
will show : Phil. ii. 13 ' It is God which worketh (tvep- 
ywv) in you both to will and to do (eVepyea/)'; Phil. iii. 
3 sq. ( And have no confidence (ov TreTroiflore?) in the flesh; 
Though I might also have confidence (e^tov ireiroidrja-iv) 
in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath 


whereof he might trust (5oet iretroiBevai) in the flesh, 
I more... as touching the law (Kara vopov), a Pharisee ; 
concerning zeal (Kara 9X09), persecuting the Church ; 
touching the righteousness (/card Sitcaiocrvwrjv) which is 
in the law, blameless': I Thess. ii. 4 'As we were al- 
lowed (SeSoKijjido-fjieOa) of God... not as pleasing men, 
but God, which trieth (So/cipd&vTi,) our hearts' : 2 Thess. 
i. 6 ' To recompense tribulation to them that trouble 
you ' (avraTTobovvai, rot? 6\i$Qvcriv vfj,d<; 6\L^iv) : Heb. 
viii. 13 ' He hath made the first old (TreirdXaiw/cev TTJV 
TrpwTTjv) ; now that which decayeth (Trakaiov^evov) and 
waxeth old(<yr)pd<rKov) is ready to vanish away': James 
ii. 2, 3 * If there come (elo-eXOp) unto your assembly 
a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel (eV ecrQrJTt, 
\afjL7rpa), and there come in (elcreXOy) also a poor man 
in vile raiment (eo-Orjri) ; and ye have respect to him 
that weareth the gay clothing (rrjv ea-dfjra TTJV Xa/z- 
Trpdv) etc.': 2 Pet. ii. I, 3 'Who privily shall bring in 
damnable heresies (atpe<reis dira)\eia<;). . .and bring upon 
themselves swift destruction (a7rto\etai/)...and their 
damnation (a-TrwXeta) slumbereth not': I John v. 9, 10 
' This is the witness (fjiaprvpla) of God which he hath 
testified (^e^aprvp^Kev) of his Son... He believeth not 
the record (fjiaprvpiav) that God gave (fj,efj,apTi>pr)Kev) 
of his Son': Rev. i. 15 'His voice ($0)1/77) as the sound 
($0)1/77) of many waters': iii. 17 * I am rich (-TrXouo-to?) 
and increased with goods (TreTrXovrrj/cay : xvii. 6, ? 


'And when I saw her, I wondered (iOav^iacra) with 
great admiration (Oav/jLa) ; and the angel said unto 
me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? (eflau/itacra?)': xviii. 
2 ' And the hold (<fXa/ay) of every foul spirit, and 
a cage ((frvXaicrj) of every, unclean and hateful bird.' 
In the instances hitherto given the variation of 
rendering is comparatively unimportant, but for this 
very reason they serve well to illustrate the wrong 
principle on which our translators proceeded. In 
such cases no more serious consequences may result 
than a loss of point and force. But elsewhere the 
injury done to the understanding of the passage is 
graver. Thus when the English reader finds in 
S. Matthew xxv. 46 ' These shall go away into ever- 
lasting (alwviov) punishment, but the righteous into 
life eternal (altoviov)} he is led to speculate on the 
difference of meaning between 'everlasting' and 
' eternal,' if he happens to have any slight acquaint- 
ance with modern controversy, and he will most 
probably be led to a wrong conclusion by observing 
different epithets used, more especially as the anti- 
thesis of the clauses helps to emphasize the difference. 
Or take instances where the result will not be mis- 
understanding, but non-understanding. Thus in the 
apocalyptic passage 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 'And now ye 
know what withholdeth (TO Kare^ov).,.on\y he who 
now letteth (6 Kare^wv apri) will let,' the same word 


should certainly have been repeated, that the identity 
of the thing signified might be clear; and in the 
doctrinal statement, Col. ii. 9, 10, 'In him dwelleth 
all the fulness (TO TrXijpcofjLa) of the Godhead bodily, 
and ye are complete (TreirX^pwfievoi) in him/ it was 
still more necessary to preserve the connexion by a 
similar rendering, for the main idea of the second 
clause is the communication of the TrXrjpw/jia which 
resides in Christ to the believers (comp. Ephes. i. 23). 
Again, the word Opovo? in the Revelation is trans- 
lated 'throne? when it refers to our Lord, but 'seat' 
when it refers to the faithful (iv. 4, xi. I6 1 ), or when it 
refers to Satan (ii. 13, xvi. 10). Now by this varia- 
tion, as Archbishop Trench has pointed out 3 , two 
great ideas which run through this Book, and indeed 
we may say through the whole of the New Testa- 
ment, are obliterated ; the one that the true servants 
of Christ are crowned with Him and share His sove- 
reignty ; the other, that the antagonism of the Prince 
of Darkness to the Prince of Light develops itself in 
' the hellish parody of the heavenly kingdom.' And 
in other passages again the connexion between dif- 
ferent parts of the same discourse or the same nar- 
rative is, severed. Thus in S. Luke xix. 13, 15, the 

1 Rev. iv. 4 ' And round about the throne (Bpbvov) were four and 
twenty seats (dpovoi).' 

3 On the Authorized Version, p. 53 sq. 


nobleman going into a far country gives charge to 
his servants Trpa^^arevcraaOe ev &> ep^o^ai, and 
when he returns, he summons them iva yvfi [or <yvol~] 
r/9 TI Si7rparyfji,aTV(TavTo. If the former had been 
translated ' Trade ye till I come,' it would then have 
corresponded to the nobleman's subsequent demand 
of them to 'know how much every man had gained 
by trading! But the rendering of our translators, 
' Occupy till I come,' besides involving a somewhat 
unintelligible archaism, disconnects the two, and the 
first indication which the English reader gets that 
the servants were expected to employ the money 
in trade is when the master at length comes to 
reckon with them. Another instance, where the con- 
nexion is not indeed wholly broken (for the context 
will not suffer this) but greatly impaired, is Matt. v. 
15, 1 6 \afjL7ret Trdcriv T0t9 ev rfj ol/cia' OVTQX; \a}jL"fyaTw 
TO <&)9 vfjbwv e/jLTTpoaOev TMV av6pwTrwv, which should 
run ' It shineth upon all that are in the house: Even so 
let your light shine before men, etc.' But in our trans- 
lation, ' It giveth light unto all that are in the house : 
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see 
your good works, etc./ the two sentences are detached 
from each other by the double error, of rendering 
Xa/ATret, Xop^afw, by different words, and of misun- 
derstanding o{/TG>9. I say 'misunderstanding,' because 
the alternative that 'so' is a mere ambiguity of 


expression seems to be precluded by the fact that 
in our Communion Service the words ' Let your light 
so .shine before men, etc./ detached from their con- 
text, are chosen as the initial sentence at the Offer- 
tory, where the correct meaning, 'in like manner/ 
could not stand. 

This love of variety might be still further illus- 
trated by their treatment of the component parts of 
words. Thus there is no reason why 7ro\vfjLpcos KOI 
TToXur/joTTft)? in Heb. i. I should be translated 'At 
sundry times and in divers manners/ even though for 
want of a better word we should allow the very in- 
adequate rendering 'times' to pass muster, where the 
original points to the divers parts of one great com- 
prehensive scheme. And again in Mark xii. 39 (comp. 
Matt, xxiii. 6) it is equally difficult to see why 7rpo>- 
TOKaOeSptas ev rat? o-vvaycayais Kal 7rpa)TOK\t,cria<; Iv 
rot? Set7n>ot9 should be rendered ' the chief seats in 
the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.' 
On the archaic rendering 'room* for the second 
element in irpwroKkicria, I shall have something to say 

These instances which have been given will suf- 
fice. But in fact examples, illustrating this miscon- 
ception of a translator's duty, are sown broadcast over 
our New Testament, so that there is scarcely a page 
without one or more. It is due to our translators 


however to say, that in many cases, which I have 
examined, they only perpetuated and did not intro- 
duce the error, which may often be traced to Tyndale 
himself, from whom our Version is ultimately derived : 
and in some instances his variations are even greater 
than theirs. Thus in a passage already quoted, 
I Cor. xii. 4 sq., he has three different renderings of 
SLaipeaeis in the three successive clauses, where they 
have only two ; ' Ther are diversities of gyftes verely, 
yet but one sprete, and ther are differences of admini- 
stration and yet but one lorde, and ther are divers 
maners of operacions and yet but one God'; and in 
Rom. xvi. his interchanges of 'salute' and 'greet' are 
still more frequent than theirs. Of all the English 
Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention to 
this point, and so far compares advantageously with 
the rest, to which in most other respects it is con- 
fessedly inferior. And I suppose that the words of 
our translators' preface, in which they attempt to jus- 
tify their course, must refer indirectly to this Roman 
Catholic Version, more especially as I find that its 
Latinisms are censured in the same paragraph. If 
so, it is to be regretted that prejudice should have 
blinded them to a consideration of some importance. 
But not only is it necessary to preserve the same 
word in the same context and in the same book ; 
equal care should be taken to secure uniformity, 
L. R. 4 


where it occurs in the same connexion in different 
passages and different books. Thus, where quota- 
tions are given once or more from the Old Testament 
in the New, the rendering should exhibit (as far as 
possible) the exact coincidence with or divergence 
from the original and one another in the language. 
Again, when the same discourses or the same inci- 
dents are recorded by different Evangelists, it is 
especially important to reproduce the features of the 
original, neither obliterating nor creating differences. 
Again, in parallel passages in allied epistles, as for 
instance those of S. Paul to the Romans and Gala- 
tians, or to the Colossians and Ephesians, or the Epi- 
stle of S. Jude and the Second Epistle of S. Peter, 
the exact amount of resemblance should be repro- 
duced, because questions of date and authenticity 
are affected thereby. Again, in the writings which 
claim the same authorship, as for instance the Gospel 
and Epistles and the Apocalypse of S. John, the simi- 
larity of diction should be preserved. Though this 
will be a somewhat laborious task, let us hope that 
our new revisers will exercise constant vigilance in 
this matter. As the authors of our Received Version 
allowed themselves so much licence in the same 
context, it is no surprise that they did not pay any 
attention to these coincidences of language which 
occur in separate parts of the New Testament, and 


which did not therefore force themselves on their 

Of their mode of dealing with quotations from the 
Old Testament, one or two instances will suffice by 
way of illustration. 

Deut. xxxii. 35 is twice quoted in exactly the 
same words. In our English Version it appears in 
these two forms. 

Rom. xii. 19. Heb. x. 30. 

Vengeance is mine; I will Vengeance belongeth un- 
repay, saith the Lord. to me, I will recompense, 

saith the Lord 

Again, the same words Gen. xv. 6 (LXX) 
w 49 Sifcaioa-vvrjv are given with these variations : 
Rom. iv. 3 ' It was counted unto him for righteous- 
ness'; Rom. iv. 22 'It was imputed to. him for right- 
eousness'; Gal. iii. 6 ' It was accounted to him for 
righteousness' (with a marginal note 'or imputed'} ; 
James ii. 23 ' It was imputed unto him for righteous- 
ness'; while in an indirect reference to it, Rom. iv. 9 
(in the immediate context of two of these divergent 
renderings), a still further variation is introduced, 'We 
say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- 

Again, /caXv-^rei, Tr\fj0o<; apapnwv (from Prov. x. 
12) is translated in James v. 20 'shall hide a multi- 



tude of sins,' and in I Pet. iv. 8 ' shall cover the mul- 
titude of sins' (with a marginal reading 'will 1 for 

The variation in the last instance which I shall 
give is still more astonishing, because the two quo- 
tations of the same passage (Ps. xcv. n) occur in 
the same context. 

Heb. iii. n. Heb. iv. 3. 

So I sware in my wrath, As I have sworn in my 

They shall not enter into wrath, If they shall enter 

my rest. into my rest. 

Here there is absolutely no difference in the Greek 
of the two passages ; and, as the argument is conti- 
nuous, no justification of the various renderings can 
be imagined. 

On the parallel narratives of the different Evange- 
lists it will not be necessary to dwell, because this 
part of the subject has been discussed at some length 
elsewhere 1 . I will content myself with three exam- 
ples. The first, which affects only the diction, is a fair 
sample of the defects of our* Version in this respect, 
because it is in no way striking or exceptional. 

1 See for instance Dean Alford's Byways of New Testament Criticism, 
Contemporary Review, July 1868. 



Matt. xvi. 26. 

Mark viii. 36. 

Luke ix. 25. 

Tt *y a P Q)(f)6- 

Tt yap d)<f)6- 

Tt yap (0(j)- 

\elTai dv0pa>7ros, 

\rjO-et, avdpcDTrov, 

XeiTai avdpct)7ros, 


eav /cepBtjarrj TOV 

/cepBr/aas TOV KOG- 


KOO-fJLOV 0\0l>, KCU 

fiov o\ov, eavTov 

Be ^v^rjv avTOv 

tofua>0y Tljv tyv- 

Be aVoXeVas ^ 


%r)v avTOVj 


' For what is 

'For what shall 

' For what is 

a man profited, 

it profit a man, 

a man advan- 

if he shall gain 

if he shall gain 

taged, if he gain 

the whole world, 

the whole world, 

the whole world, 

and lose his own 

and lose his own 

and lose him- 


soul ?' 

self, or be cast 


Here the coincidences and divergences of the first 
two Evangelists are fairly preserved ; but the relations 
of the third to either are wholly confused or obli- 

My second example shall be of a different kind ; 
where the variation introduced affects not the ex- 
pression only, but the actual interpretation. 

In the explanation of the parable of the sower 
in S. Mark iv. 16 ol eVt TO. TreTpcvBrj (nreipofievoi, is 
properly translated 'they which are sown on stony 
ground,' and the corresponding expressions are treat- 
ed similarly; but in S. Matthew xiii. 2O 6 eVl ra 
<77ra/3et9 becomes, ' He that received the seed 


into stony places,' where (besides minor variations) 
the person is substituted for the seed, and the corre- 
sponding expressions throughout the parable are 
manipulated similarly in defiance of grammar. This 
rendering is unhappy on many accounts. Besides 
making the Evangelists say different things, it has 
the still further disadvantage, that it destroys one 
main idea in the parable, the identification (for the 
purposes of the parable) of the seed when sown with 
the person himself ] so that the life and growth and 
decay of the one are coincident with the life and 
growth and decay of the other. The form of ex- 
pression in S. Luke (viii. 14 TO Se et9 r9 aicavQa^ 
7ree7o> OVTOI elalv ol aKov(TavT6s) brings out this iden- 
tity more prominently ; but it is expressed not 
obscurely in the other Evangelists, and should not 
have been obliterated by our translators in one of 
them through an ungrammatical paraphrase. 

My third example concerns the treatment of a 
single word. In the account of the scenes preceding 
the Crucifixion, mention is made of a certain building 
which by three of the Evangelists is called Trpairw- 
piov. In S. Matthew (xxvii. 27) it is translated 'com- 
mon-hall,' with a marginal alternative 'governor's 
house'; in S. John (xviii. 28, 33, xix. 9) 'hall of judg- 
ment' and 'judgment-hall/ with a marginal alterna- 
tive 'Pilate's house' in the first passage; while in 


S. Mark (xv. 16) it is reproduced in the English as 
' praetorium.' It should be added that this same word 
when it occurs in the same sense, though referring to 
a different locality, in Acts xxiii. 35 is rendered 'judg- 
ment-hall,' though a 'judgment-hall' would obviously 
be an unfit place to keep a prisoner in ward ; and 
again in Phil. i. 13 eV oX&> ra) TrpaiTcopLw (where pro- 
bably it signifies the ' praetorian army/ but where our 
English translators have taken it to mean another 
such building) it appears as ' palace.' This last ren- 
dering might very properly have been adopted in all 
the passages in the Gospels and Acts, as adequately 
expressing the meaning. 

So also in those Epistles which are allied to each 
other 1 , the treatment of identical words and expres- 
sions is neither more nor less unsatisfactory than in 
the Gospels. 

In the instances already given, though there may 
be differences of opinion as to the importance of the 
subject, all probably will agree on the main point 
that it is advisable to preserve uniformity of render- 
ing. The illustration which I shall next select is 
more open to criticism ; and, as Archbishop Trench 
and Dean Alford and the Five Clergymen all take a 

1 See Blunt's Duties of the Parish Priest, p. 71, Ellicott's Revision 
of the English N?w Testament, p. 118. 


different view from my own 1 , I can hardly hope that 
my argument will carry general conviction. Yet the 
case seems to be strong. I refer to the translation of 
7rapaK\7)To<i in the Gospel and in the First Epistle 
of S. John. In the former it is consistently trans- 
lated 'Comforter' (xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7), while in 
the one passage where it occurs in the latter (ii. i) 
the rendering ' Advocate ' is adopted. Is there suffi- 
cient reason for this difference ? No one probably 
would wish to alter the word ' Advocate ' in the 
Epistle, for the expressions in the context, ' with the 
Father,' ' Jesus Christ the righteous (Slxaiov),' l a pro- 
pitiation for our sins,' fix the sense, so that the pas- 
sage presents a sufficiently close parallel with the 
common forensic language of S. Paul (e.g. Rom. iii. 
24 26). But why should the same word be rendered 
* Comforter ' in the Gospel ? Now I think it may 
fairly be maintained first, that the word Trapa/eX^ro? 
in itself means ' Advocate ' and cannot mean ' Com- 
forter'; and secondly, that the former rendering is more 
appropriate to the context in all the passages in 
which it occurs. 

1 To the same effect also writes Archdeacon Hare, Mission of the 
Comforter, Note J, p. 523, 'At present so many sacred associations 
have connected themselves for generation after generation with the name 
of the Comforter, that it would seem something like an act of sacrilege 
to change it.' Yet he agrees substantially with the view of the meaning 
which I have maintained in the text. 


On the first point the meaning of the word 
usage appears to be decisive. It commonly signifies 
'one who is summoned to the side of another (-Trapa- 
/caXemu)' to aid him in a court of justice, and more 
particularly 'an advocate' or 'a pleader,' being ap- 
plied especially to the 'counsel for the defence 1 '] nor, 
so far as I am aware, does it ever bear any other sense, 
except perhaps in some later ecclesiastical writers 
whose language has been influenced by a false inter- 
pretation of these passages in S. John. In other 
words TrapdtcX.'rjTos is passive, not active ; one who 
TrapaKaXeirai,, not one who TrapaicaXel ; one who 'is 
summoned to plead a cause,' not one who 'exhorts 
or encourages or comforts/ Nor indeed, if we com- 
pare the simple word /cX^ro? and the other compounds 

etc., or if we observe the general rule affecting adjec- 
tives similarly formed from transitive verbs, does it 
seem easy to assign an active sense to Trapd/cXrjTos. 
Yet it can hardly be doubted that the rendering 'Com- 
forter' was reached by attributing this active force 
to Trapd/cXrjTos, and that therefore it arises out of an 
error; for the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is again 

1 See Hermann, Griech. Antiq. III. 142, p. 320. The origin of 
this sense is illustrated by such passages as yEschines c. Clesiph. 200, 
Ka.1 rl Set ae A7j/j.off8i>T)v jrapa.Ka.Xe'iv; STO.V 5' virpTrr)8'i]<ras rrju diKaiav 
diroXoytav 7rapa*coXgs Kaicovpyov avdpuirov Kal Tf)(v'i.TT}v \6yuv, 
TTjv aKp6a<nv K.r.X. 


and again explained by the Fathers as one who 
Trapa/caXeZ 1 , encourages or comforts men; and the 
fact that even Greek writers are found to explain 
the word thus is the only substantial argument 
(so far as I know) which has been brought against 
the view here maintained. It is urged indeed that 
the word 'Comforter,' being derived from the Latin 
' confortator/ * strengthener,' and therefore implying 
something more than * comfort* in the restricted 
sense of 'consolation/ adequately represents the 
function of the Trapa/cX^ro? who thus strengthens 
the cause and confirms the courage of the accused at 
the bar of justice. But the history of the interpreta- 
tion, as already given, shows that this rendering was 
not reached in the way assumed, but was based on a 

1 So Origen de Princ. ii. 7 (r. p. 93), a passage which unfortunately 
is extant only in the Latin, but in which (if correctly represented) Origen 
takes Trapaif\Tf]Tos both in the Gospel and in the Epistle in an active 
sense, explaining it however consolator in the Gospel and deprecator 
in the Epistle. See also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xvi. 20 (p. 255), 
TrapaKXTjTos 5 AcaXetrai 5i<i rb irapa.Ka.'Xeiv Kal Trapa.fJ.vdei<r0ai Kai ffvvavri- 
\<rdai rrjs curdevfias TJ/JLUV. And many of the Greek Fathers 
explain it similarly. The fact to be observed is, that even in the 
Epistle, where, it manifestly has the sense ' Advocate,' they equally 
derive it from irapaKaXelv and not 7ra/5a/KaXe?<70cu, thus giving it an 
active force; whereas the passage quoted in the last note shows that 
the meaning ' Advocate ' is not to be derived in this way. The Latin 
Fathers generally follow the old Latin ' Advocatus ' ; but Hilary, though 
most frequently giving ' Advocatus,' yet once at least renders it ' Conso- 
lator' (in Psalm, cxxv, I. p. 461). 


grammatical error; and therefore this account can 
only be accepted as an apology after the fact and not 
as an explanation of the fact. Moreover it is not fair 
translating to substitute a subordinate and accidental 
conception for the leading sense of a word. And 
lastly, whatever may be the derivation of ' Com- 
forter/ the word does not now suggest this idea to 
the English reader. 

But secondly ', if 'Advocate* is the only sense 
which Trapd/cXrjTos can properly bear, it is also (as 
I cannot but think) the sense which the context sug- 
gests, wherever the word is used in the Gospel. In 
other words, the idea of pleading, arguing, convincing, 
instructing, convicting, is prominent in every instance 1 . 
Thus in xiv. 16 sq. the Paraclete is described as 
the 'Spirit of truth* whose reasonings fall dead on 
the ear of the world, and are vocal only to the faithful 
(o 6 Kocfios ov Svvarai \a/36iv...vfjLei<? ytvaxr/cere avro). 
In xiv. 26 again the function of the Paraclete is 
described in similar language, ' He shall teach you 
all things and remind you of all things.' In xv. 26 
He is once more designated the ' Spirit of truth/ and 
here the office assigned to Him is to bear witness of 

1 In xiv. 18 the English Version, ' I will not leave you comfortless, 
lends a fictitious aid to the sense * Comforter,' to which the original oi5/c 
d<f>r]<r(i} uyuas 6p<t>a.vobs gives no encouragement. The margin however 
oilers the alternative ' orphans ' for 6p<pavoijs. 


Christ. And lastly in xvi. 7 sq. the idea of \hzpleader 
appears still more definitely in the context, for it is 
there declared that ' He shall convince ' or ' convict 
(e'Xe7f et) the world of sin and of righteousness and of 
judgment.' And generally it may be said that the 
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is represented in these 
passages as the Advocate, the Counsel, who sug- 
gests true reasonings to our minds and true courses 
of action for our lives, who convicts our adversary 
the World of wrong and pleads our cause before God 
our Father. In short the conception (though some- 
what more comprehensive) is substantially the same 
as in S. Paul's language when describing the function 
of the Holy Ghost; 'The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit that we are children of God,' * The 
Spirit helpeth our infirmities : for we know not what 
we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself 
maketh intercession for us with groanings which can- 
not be uttered (Rom. viii. 16, 26).' 

Thus, whether we regard the origin of the word, 
or whether we consider the requirements of the con- 
text 1 , it would seem that ' Comforter ' should give 

1 In a case like this we should naturally expect tradition to aid in 
determining the correct sense, and for this purpose should apply to 
the earliest Versions as giving it in its best authenticated form ; but in 
the instance before us they do not render as much assistance as usual. 
(i) The Old Latin seems certainly to have had Advocatus originally 
in all the four passages of the Gospel, as also in the passage of the 


way to 'Advocate/ as the interpretation 
The word 'Comforter' does indeed express a true 
office of the Holy Spirit, as our most heartfelt expe- 
riences will tell us. Nor has the rendering, though 
inadequate, been without its use in fixing this fact in 

our minds ; but the function of the Paraclete, as our 

Advocate, is even more important, because wider 

and deeper than this. Nor will the idea of the 'Com- 
forter ' be lost to us by the change, for the English 
Te Deum will still remain to recal this office of the 

Epistle. It is true that in the existing texts Paracletus (or Paraclitus} 
occurs in one or more of the passages, and in some MSS in the others : 
but the earliest quotations from Tertullian onwards must be considered 
decisive on this point. So far therefore tradition favours the sense 
which I am maintaining. Jerome retained the Greek word 'Paracletus' 
in the Gospel, but gave 'Advocatus' in the Epistle. It would appear 
however that 'Paracletus' had already displaced 'Advocatus' in some 
passages in the Gospel in one or more of the many texts of the Old 
Latin which were current in the fourth century. (2) In the Syriac 
Versions the Greek word is retained. This is the case with the Cure 
tonian in John xiv. 16 (the only passage preserved in this Version), 
and with the Peshito throughout in both the Gospel and the Epistle. 
(3) In the Egyptian Versions also this is generally the case. In the 
Memphitic\t]Tos appears in all the passages. In the Thebaic 
the rendering is different in the Gospels and in the Epistle. In the 
Epistle it is given, 'One that prayeth (entreateth) for (over) us'; but 
in the Gospel (at least in xiv. 16, xv. 26) the Greek word is retained. 
These parts of the Gospel in the Thebaic Version are not published, so 
far as I am aware ; but I am enabled to state these facts from some 
manuscript additions made by Dr Tattam in my copy of Woide which 
was formerly in his possession. 


Paraclete to our remembrance ; while the restora- 
tion of the correct rendering in the passages of 
S. John's Gospel will be in itself an unmixed gain. 
Moreover (and this is no unimportant fact) the lan- 
guage of the Gospel will thus be linked in the 
English Version, as it is in the original, with the lan- 
guage of the Epistle. In this there will be a twofold 
advantage. We shall see fresh force in the words 
thus rendered, ' He will give you another Advocate,' 
when we remember that our Lord is styled by 
S. John our 'Advocate': the Advocacy of Christ 
illustrating and being illustrated by the Advocacy 
of the Spirit. At the same time we shall bring out 
another of the many coincidences, tending to establish 
an identity of authorship in the Gospel and Epistle, 
and thus to make valid for the former all the evi- 
dences external and internal which may be adduced 
to prove the genuineness of the latter. 

This connexion between the Gospel and the 
Epistle leads me to another illustration, which links 
the Gospel with the Apocalypse. The idea that the 
Shechinah, the tncvjvri, the glory which betokened the 
Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies, and which was 
wanting to the second temple, would be restored once 
more in Messiah's days, was a cherished hope of the 
Jewish doctors during and after the Apostolic ages. In 
the Apocalypse S. John more than once avails himself 


of imagery derived from this expectation. Thus vii. 15 
' He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among 
them (aKi)vwa-ei eV avTovs)'; xiii. 6 'He opened his 
mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His 
name and His tabernacle (a-rcrjvrjv), and them that dwell 
(TOI)? crtcTjvovvTas') in heaven'; xxi. 3 'Behold, the taber- 
nacle (o-Kr)vrj) of God is with men, and He will dwell 
w r ith them (cncr)V(Lo-eL yuer' avrwv)! Here it is much to 
be regretted that the necessities of the English lan- 
guage required our translators to render the substan- 
tive (TKTjvT) by one word and the verb aicrjvovv by 
another. In the first passage -the significance is 
entirely lost by translating a-KTjvGoaei, 'shall dwell' 
combined with the erroneous rendering of eV/: and 
no English reader would suspect the reference to the 
glory, the Shechinah, hovering over the mercy-seat 1 . 
But our regret is increased when we turn to the 
Gospel: for there also the same image reappears in 
the Greek, but is obliterated by the English render- 
ing ; ' The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (ea-tcijvo- 
cev) among us, and we beheld His glory? The two 
writings, which attribute the name of the Word of 
God to the Incarnate Son, are the same also which 

1 In 2 Cor. xii. 9 'iva. tTlfffifr&ffQ ^TT' /j. 77 diva/us rov XptoroO, 
translated 'that the power of Christ may rest upon me,' there seems 
to be a similar reference to the symbol of the Divine Presence in the 
Holy of Holies. 


especially connect Messiah's Advent with the restitu- 
tion of the Shechinah, the light or glory which is the 
visible token of God's presence among men. In this 
instance the usage of the English language may have 
deterred our translators. Still they would have 
earned our gratitude, if following the precedent of 
the Latin tabernaculavit they had anticipated later 
scholars and introduced the verb 'to tabernacle' 
into the English language ; or failing this, if by some 
slight periphrasis they had endeavoured to preserve 
the unity of idea. 

In other cases where artificial distinctions are in- 
troduced, our translators must be held blameless, 
for the exigences of the English language left them 
no choice. Thus in John iii. 8 TO irvev^a (the wind) 

OTTOV 6e\ei Trvei (bloweth) ovrws earlv TTU? 6 <ye- 

tyevvrjfievos IK TOV TlvevfjLaros (the Spirit), we must 
patiently acquiesce in the different renderings, though 
the comparison between the material and immaterial 
TTvevfjLa is impaired thereby ; just as in a later passage 
(xx. 22 eve<f)vcrr)(rev Kal Xeyet avrois, Aa/Sere Tlvevpa 
"A.yiov) the symbolical act of breathing on the disciples 
loses much of its force to an English reader. Again, 
it might be necessary to vary the renderings of ^rv)(r} 
between ' soul ' and ' life '; and of crojfe^ between ' to 
save ' and 'to make whole.' But in case of the former 
word such variations as we find for instance in Matt. 


xvi. 25, 26, and the parallel passages, deserve to be 
reconsidered ; and in their treatment of the latter, as 
Dean Alford has shown 1 , our translators have diver- 
sified the rendering capriciously. 

And the same excuse also holds good with an- 
other class of words ; where a paronomasia occurs in 
the original, but where it is impossible in English at 
once to preserve the similarity of sound and to give 
the sense adequately. In Phil. iii. 2, 3 indeed our 
translators, following some of the earlier versions, 
have endeavoured to reproduce the paronomasia, 
'Beware of the concision (KaraTo^v), for we are the 
circumcision (Trepirofir))' ; but the result is not encou- 
raging, for it may be questioned whether 'concision' 
conveys any idea to the English reader. Again the 
attempt is made in Rom. xii. 3 prj vTrepfypovelv Trap o 
Bel (frpovelv, aXXtt <f>poveiv eh TO a co(f) povelv, but with no 
great success, for in the rendering 'not to think of 
himself more highly than he ought to think, but to 
think soberly,' the force of the original is evaporated. 
On the other hand the rendering of I Cor. vii. 31 ol 
co KocrfJLW rovra) [/. TOV KOO~IJLOV\ co? fjur) /cara- 
,, ' they that use this world, as not abusing it,' 
is adequate. In other passages such as Acts viii. 30 
yivwcr/ceis a dvayivaxTfceis ' understandest thou what 
thou readcst?', 2 Cor. iii. 2 yivcoo-KOfAevr) Kal 
1 Contemporary Review^ July 1868, p. 323. 

L. R. 5 


'known and read,' 2 Cor. i. 13 a 
fj /cal eTriyivcbo-tceTe 'what ye read or acknowledge/ 
2 Cor. x. 12 ov TO\fJLO)fj,6V ey/cplvat, r; (rwyKplvai, eaurot? 
'we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare 
ourselves,' it would be impossible to reproduce the 
effect of the original. But in other cases such as 

1 Cor. xii. 2 ct9 av T^yecr^e, aTrayofMevoi, 'carried away as 
ye were led,' 2 Cor. iv. 8 aTropov/jLevoi, aXV ov/c e'faTro- 
pov/jievoi, 'we are perplexed, but not in despair,' or 

2 Cor. vi. IO cw? iLJ)$ev e^o^re? KOI irdvra /caT6^ovre<; 
' as having nothing, and yet possessing all things/ the 
rendering might be improved. Nor is there any 
reason why the play on eprya^o/jievovs, Trepiepya^ofjievovs, 
in 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 should not be preserved by ' busi- 
ness/ 'busy-bodies'; or why in Ephes. v. 15 ^77 cu? 
aao^oL aXX' ok crofyol should not be rendered ' not as 
unwise but as wise.' In this latter passage the word 
aarocfros, which occurs nowhere else in the New Tes- 
tament, has been purposely preferred to the usual 
fjLwpos. Yet our translators have rendered aa-o<f>oi 
'fools' here, and reserved 'unwise' for acSpoi/e? two 
verses below, where it is not wanted. 


From the creation of artificial distinctions in our 
English Version by different renderings of the same 


word we pass naturally to the opposite fault, the ob- 
literation of real distinctions by the same rendering 
of different words. The former error is easily cor- 
rected for the most part; the latter not always so. 
For the synonyms of one language frequently cannot 
be reproduced in another without a harsh expression 
or a cumbersome paraphrase. Thus olSa, yivwcrica), 
eyvw/ca, eTTicrra/jLai, have different shades of meaning 
in Greek, but the obvious equivalent for each in 
English is ' I know.' Still some effort should be 
made (though success is not always possible) to dis- 
criminate between them, where they occur in the 
same context, and where therefore their position 
throws a special emphasis on the distinction. Thus 
in Acts xix. 15 we should not acquiesce in 'Jesus I 
know, and Paul I know/ as a rendering of rov 'Irja-ovv 
yivaxTKQ) /cal rov HavXov ewiffrapai, though all the 
preceding translations unite with our Authorised 
Version in obliterating the difference. The sig- 
nificant distinction which is made in the original 
between the kind of recognition in the case of the 
Divine agent and of the human instrument may 
easily be preserved by rendering, * Jesus I acknow- 
ledge and Paul I know* Again in such passages as 
2 Cor. v. 1 6 drro rov vvv ovSeva oiSafnev Kara capita, 
el Kal eyvoo/capev Kara crdptca Xpurrov, d\\a vvv ov/ceri 
(and this is a type of a large class of 



passages, where ol$a and <yivwcrKa> occur together) 
some improvement should be attempted ; nor in the 
instance given could there be any difficulty in varying 
the rendering, though elsewhere the task might not 
prove so easy. 

From these allied words I pass on to the distinc- 
tion between yLvuxr/ceiv and eir^ivwa-Keiv, which is both 
clearer and more easily dealt with. Those who have 
paid any attention to the language of S. Paul will 
recognise the force of the substantive eTrlyvwai? as 
denoting the advanced or perfect knowledge which is 
the ideal state of the true Christian, and will remem- 
ber that it appears only in his later epistles (from 
the Romans onwards), where the more contemplative 
aspects of the Gospel are brought into view and its 
comprehensive and eternal relations more fully set 
forth. But the power of the preposition appears in 
the verb, no less than in the substantive ; and indeed 
its significance is occasionally forced upon our 
notice, where the simple and the compound verb 
appear in the same context. Thus in I Cor. xiii. 12 
apri yivooo-KO) etc fjiepovs, Tore Se eTTiyvwaofjiai, Ka0(i)<i 
Kal eTreyvwo-Qrjv, the partial knowledge (yivwo-iceiv IK 
/Ae/)ou9, comp. ver. cj) is contrasted with the ///// know- 
ledge (iri<yivto<TK.iv) which shall be attained hereafter, 
though our translators have rendered both words by 
'know.' Yet strangely enough, where the special 


force of the compound was less obvious, it has not 
escaped them ; for in 2 Cor. vi. 9 o5? dyvoovpevoi, ical 
cTriyivwo-Kofievoi, is translated 'as unknown, and yet 
well known! 

In this particular the observance of the distinc- 
tion between a simple word and its derivatives 
compounded with prepositions our English Version 
is especially faulty. The verb tcpivew and its com- 
pounds will supply a good illustration. S. Paul 
especially delights to accumulate these ; and thus by 
harping upon words (if I may use the expression) to 
emphasize great spiritual truths or important personal 
experiences. Thus he puts together o-vy/cpivew, 
dva/cpiveiv, I Cor. ii. 13 15 ', Kplvew, dvaicpiveiv, 
I Cor. iv. 3, 4; tyxpivciV) <rvytcpbew, 2 Cor. x. 12; 
/cpiveiv, Sia/cpLi>iv, I Cor. vi. I 6; Kplvew, Bia/cpiveiv, 
, Rom. xiv. 22, 23, I Cor. xi. 29, 31, 32; 
, KaraK piveiv, Rom. ii. I. Now it seems impos- 
sible in most cases, without a sacrifice of English 
which no one would be prepared to make, to reproduce 
the similarity of sound or the identity of root; but 
the distinction of sense should always be preserved. 
How this is neglected in our Version, and what 
confusion ensues from the neglect, the following 
instances will show. In I Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5, e/iol Se els 
e&Tiv 'iva v<$ vpaiv dvaKpi6w...aX)C ov&e 
bv dvc,Kpivu>...6 Se dvaKpivwv yue, 


&<7T fJLTJ TTpO KCtlpOV Tl Kplvere, 66)9 at/ \0r) O Kt'/3t09, 

G9 Kal <j>a)Ti(Ti rd KpVTTTa rov cr/coTOU9, the word 
dvcLKpivew is translated throughout 'judge'; while in 
a previous passage, I Cor. ii. 14, 15, it is rendered 
indifferently 'to discern' and 'to judge.' But dva- 
Kpivew is neither 'to judge/ which is icplveiv, nor 'to 
discern/ which is Siaicpivew, but ' to examine, investi- 
gate, enquire into, question/ as it is rightly translated 
elsewhere, e.g. I Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, 27 ; and the correct 
understanding of the passage before us depends on 
our retaining this sense. The avd/cpiais, it will be 
remembered, was an Athenian law term for a pre- 
liminary investigation (distinct from the actual Kpivis 
or trial), in which evidence was collected and the 
prisoner committed for trial, if a true bill was found 
against him. It corresponded in short mutatis 
mutandis to the part taken in English law proceedings 
by the grand jury. And this is substantially the 
force of the word here. The Apostle condemns all 
these impatient human praejudicia, these unauthorised 
dvaKpi<ris f which anticipate the final Kpl&is, reserving 
his case for the great tribunal when at length all 
the evidence will be forthcoming and a satisfactory 
verdict can be given. Meanwhile this process of 
gathering evidence has begun ; an dvaKpicns is indeed 
being held, not however by these self-appointed ma- 
gistrates, but by One who alone has the authority 


to institute the enquiry, and the ability to sift the 
facts : 6 Se dvafcpivwv pe Kvpios ecrrw. Of this half 
technical sense of the word the New Testament itself 
furnishes a good example. The examination of S. 
Paul before Festus is both in name and in fact an 
dvd/cpicris. The Roman procurator explains to Agrippa 
how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into 
court (Trpotjyayov avrbv) in order that, having held 
the preliminary enquiry usual in such cases (rrjs 
dva/cpiaetos yevofjuevv]?), he might be able to lay the 
case before the emperor (Acts xxv. 26). Thus S. 
Paul's meaning here suffers very seriously by the 
wrong turn given to dvaKpivew ; nor is this the only 
passage where the sense is impaired thereby. In I 
Cor. xiv. 24 l\,6y^eraL VTTO TTUVTCOV, dva/cpiverai, VTTO 
TrdvTcov, [real ovrw] rd KpVTrrd rrjs tcapSias avrov 
(f>avpd yLverai, the sense required is clearly 'sifting, 
probing, revealing,' and the rendering of our translators 
*he is judged of all' introduces an idea alien to the 
passage. Again, only five verses lower down (xiv. 29) 
another compound of /cptvetv occurs and is similarly 
treated, Trpoc^^rat Be Bvo fj rpet? \a\elrwcrav /cal ol O\\OL 
SiaKptverwo-av, 'let the prophets speak two or three, 
and let the other judgel where it would be difficult to 
attach any precise meaning to the English without the 
aid of the Greek, and where certainly Sta/c 
ought to be rendered 'discern' rather than 'judge.' 


Another passage which I shall take to illustrate 
the mode of dealing with icpivew and its compounds 
is still more important. In I Cor. xi. 28 34, a 
passage in which the English rendering is chargeable 
with some serious practical consequences and where 
a little attention to the original will correct more than 
one erroneous inference, the rendering of icpiveiv, 
SicLKpivew, KarcLKpiveLv, is utterly confused. The Greek 
runs SoKi/Aa^tra) 8e civOpwiros eavrbv /cal o#Tft>? e/c rov 
dprov ecr0iTG) /cal IK rov irorrjpLOV Trivera)' 6 yap eaOiwv 
KOI irlvwv [apaflo?] Kpi^a eavrq) ecrQiei /cal TrtWt, fjLrj 
TO aw/jia [rov K.vplov\...el Se eauroz)? Ste- 
, OVK av e/cpivofieOa' /cpivopevot, Be VTTO 
}Lvplov TraibevcfJieOa, wa JJLTJ crvv T&> Koa^a* /cara/cpi- 
0tofjLV...eiL Tt9 Treiva, ev OIL/CM eo-Qierco, iva fjirj els icpifia 
a-vvep^crOe^ where the words in brackets should be 
omitted from the text. The English rendering corre- 
sponding to this is ; ' But let a man examine himself, 
and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that 
cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- 
cerning' the Lord's body... For if we would jttdge 
ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are 
judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should 
not be condemned with the world... If any man hunger, 
let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto 
condemnation' Here the faults are manifold. In 


the first place Kp[^a is rendered by two separate 
words 'damnation' and 'condemnation'; and, though 
we cannot fairly charge our translators with the 
inferences practically drawn from the first word, yet 
this is a blemish which we would gladly remove. 
But in fact both words are equally wrong, the correct 
rendering 'judgment' having in either case been 
relegated to the margin where it has lain neglected 
and has exercised no influence at all on the popular 
mind. And this circumstance (for it is only a sample 
of the fate which has befallen numberless valuable 
marginal readings elsewhere) suggests an important 
practical consideration. If the marginal renderings 
are intended for English-reading people (and for 
scholars they are superfluous), they will only then 
fulfil their purpose, when the margin is regarded as an 
integral portion of our English Bibles, and when it is 
ordered by authority that these alternative readings 
shall always be printed with the text. This then is 
the second error of our translators : tepiveiv, Kara/cpi- 
vew, are confused, when the force of the passage 
depends on their being kept separate; for these 
Kpipara in the Apostle's language are temporary 
judgments, differing so entirely from Kardicpi^a that 
they are intended to have a chastening effect and to 
save from condemnation, as he himself distinctly 
states; Kpivbpevoi 8e viro Kvplov Traibevo/jLeOa, f (va /LIT} 


avv TO) Kocr/JLO) icaraKpiOw /j,ev. Lastly, the Version 
contains a third error in the confusion of icpivew and 
biaicpiveiv ; for whereas SiaKplvovres TO o-oofia is 
correctly translated ' discerning the body cf the Lord ' 
at the first occurrence of SuiKpiveiv, yet when the word 
appears again, it is rendered 'judge* to the confusion 
of the sense ; el eavrovs SieKpivoiJLev, ovtc av e/cpwofieOa, 
' If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged* 
where it ought to stand ' If we had discerned ourselves, 
we should not have been judged! In fact S. Paul 
speaks of three stages, marked respectively by Sia- 
Kplveiv, Kpivew, and Kxrafcpiveiv. The first word 
expresses the duty of persons before and in com- 
municating; this duty is twofold, they must discern 
themselves and discern the Lord's body, that they 
may understand and not violate the proper relations 
between the one and other. The second expresses the 
immediate consequences which ensue from the neglect 
of this duty fat judgments which are corrective and 
remedial, but not final. The third denotes the 'final 
condemnation, which only then overtakes a man, when 
the second has failed to reform his character. But 
this sequence is wholly obliterated in our Version. 
In Rom. xiv. 22, 23 again, where the words occur 
together, it would have been well to have kept the 
distinction, though here the confusion is not so fatal 
to the meaning : ' Happy is he that condemneth not 


himself (6 /IT) tcpivnv eavrov) in that thing which he 
alloweth (eV <j> Sotci/jLa^i): And he that doubteth (6 Se 
SiaKpivofievos) is damned (tcaTaKe/cpLTai) if he eat, 
because he eateth not of faith.' S. Paul is not satisfied 
in this case, that a man should not condemn himself; 
he must not even judge himself. In other words the 
case must be so clear that he has no need to balance 
conflicting arguments with a view to arriving at a 
result. Otherwise he should abstain altogether, for 
his eating is not of faith. Here our translators have 
rendered SicucpLvbiievos rightly, but a misgiving appears 
to have occurred to them, for in the margin they add 
' Or, discerneth and putteth a difference between 
meats,' which would be the active 6 Siaicpivwv. Indeed 
an evil destiny would seem to have pursued them 
throughout, when dealing with compounds of Kpivew, 
for in another passage (2 Cor. i. 9) they render diro- 
Kpipa ' sentence/ though the correct meaning ' answer* 
is given in the margin. 

This neglect of prepositions in compound words 
is a very frequent fault in our Version. In the 
parable of the wheat and the tares indeed, though 
the correct reading describes the sowing in the one 
case by aireipeiv and in the other by eTriaireipeLv 
(Matt. xiii. 24, 25), yet no blame can attach to our 
translators for not observing the distinction, as they 
had in their text the faulty reading eWape for 


eTrecrTreipev. But elsewhere this excuse cannot be 
pleaded in their behalf. Thus in the parable of 
the wedding-feast there is a striking variation of 
language between the commission of the master and 
its execution by the servants, which ought not to 
have been effaced. The order given is iropevevOe 
eVl ra9 &i,ej;6Sovs TWV oSwv, but as regards its 
fulfilment we read simply eeX0oWe9 eh ra? 0801)9 
(Matt. xxii. g, 10). In this change of expression we 
seem to see a reference to the imperfect work of 
the human agents as contrasted with the urgent and 
uncompromising terms of the command, which bade 
them scour the public thoroughfares, following all their 
outlets ; and certainly it is slovenly work to translate 
both ra9 oVfoou9 TMV 6Bd)v and ra9 0801)9 alone by 
the same rendering 'high-ways.' A similar defect 
again is the obliteration of the distinction between 
airavav and ^K^airavav in 2 Cor. xii. 1 5 ' I will very 
gladly spend (Sajravijaa)) and be spent (e/cSaTrawrjOr}- 
o-ofjiat,) for you,' where ' wholly spent ' would give the 
force of the compound. But examples of this kind 
might be multiplied. Would it not be possible, for 
instance, to find some rendering, which without any 
shock to good taste would yet distinguish between 
$i\elv and Kara<f>i\.lv in such passages as Matt. xxvi. 
48, 49 ov av (f>i\ijo-(o auro9 a~Tiv...Kal /car(f>i\rj- 
<rev avrcv, and Luke vii. 45, 46 </>t\?7/x poi OVK 


, aurrj &e...ov SteXiTrev KaTa$i\ovcra, TOU? TroSa? 
IJLOV, so as to bring out the extravagance of the 
treachery in the one case and the depth of the 
devotion in the other, implied in the strong compound 

Hardly less considerable is the injury inflicted on 
the sense by failing to observe the different force of 
prepositions, when not compounded. Of this fault 
one instance must suffice. In 2 Cor. iii. 1 1 el yap TO 
Karapyov/JLvov Sia So 779, TroXXro /Jba\\ov TO /juevov ev 
80^77, 'For if that which is done away was glorious, 
much more that which remaineth is glorious! the 
distinction of SLO, Sof/?? and ev &6%r) is obliterated, 
though the change is significant in the original, where 
the transitory flush and the abiding presence are 
distinguished by the change of prepositions, and thus 
another touch is added to the picture of the contrast 
between the two dispensations. 

Again, how much force is lost by neglecting a 
change of gender in the English rendering of John 
i. 1 1 ' He came to his own (et? TO, iSia) t and his own 
(OL L&IOI) received him not.' Here the distinction 
in the original between the neuter TO. i$ia and the 
masculine ol ISiot, at once recalls the parable in Matt. 
xxi. 33 sq., in which the vineyard corresponds to ra 
TSta and the husbandmen to ol 181,01 ; but our Version 
makes no distinction between the place and the 


persons between 'His own home' and 'His own 
people. 1 Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength 
in the English rendering which no one would wil- 
lingly sacrifice ; but the sense ought to be the first 

Let me pass to an illustration of another kind, 
where confusion is introduced by the same render- 
ing of different verbs: I Cor. xiv. 36 'What, came 
the word of God out from you ? or came it unto you 
only ? ' Here there appears to the English reader to 
be an opposition between from and unto, and the two 
interrogatives seem to introduce alternative proposi- 
tions. The original however is rj afi vpwv 6 \6yos TOV 
eov e%?)\6ev ; rj et? vfia? fjuovovs KarrjvTrjaev ; where 
the fault of the English Version is twofold ; the same 
word is used in rendering e%rj\6ev and KarrjvTvjo-ev, 
and p,6vov<$ is represented by the ambiguous 'only.' 
Thus the emphasis is removed from the pronoun you 
in both clauses to the prepositions, and the two 
hypotheses are made to appear mutually exclusive. 
The translation of Tyndale, which was retained even 
in the Bishops' Bible, though somewhat harsh, is 
correct and forcible, ' Spronge the worde of God from 
you ? Ether came it unto you only 1 ?' 

1 A very important passage, in which the hand of the reviser is 
needed, may perhaps be noted here. The correct Greek Text of Matt. 
V. 32 is Tras 6 dTroXiW TT\V yvvaiKO. avrov, Trape/cros \6yov iropveias, iroiet 
avryv /uoixei/0?}'cu, KO! 6s tdj> dTroXeXvfjLtvijv 70/070-77 /totxarat, where 


Much attention has been directed by recent 
writers to the synonymes of the New Testament. 
They have pointed out what is lost to the English 
reader by such confusions as those of av\r) fotd and 
iro'uLvr] flock in John x. 1 6, where in our Version the 
same word/0/# stands for both 1 , though the point of 
our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction 
between the many folds and the one flock ; of SovXot, 
and Sid/covoi, in the parable of the wedding-feast 
(Matt. xxii. I sq.), both rendered by servants, though 
they have different functions assigned to them, and 
though they represent two distinct classes of beings 
the one human, the other angelic ministers 2 ; of KO- 

our English Version has ' Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for 
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever 
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adtiltery.' Here the English 
Version casts equal blame on the woman, thus doing her an injustice, 
for obviously she is not in the same position with the husband as regards 
guilt; but the Greek /uoixeutf^cu (not /uoixa0-0ai), being a passive verb, 
implies something quite different. In this instance however the fault 
does not lie at the door of our translators, who instead of ^.otxevdTjvai 
had the false reading /-totxcur&u ; but, the correct text being restored, 
a corresponding change in the English rendering is necessary. Com- 
pare also the various reading in Matt. xix. 9. 

1 Tyndale and Coverdale preserve the distinction of flock and fold. 
In the Great Bible it disappears. 

2 Here again the older Versions generally preserve the distinction, 
translating SovXoi, diaKovotby 'servants,' 'ministers,' respectively. The 
Rheims Version has 'waiters' for diaKovoi. In this case the Geneva 
Bible was the first to obliterate the distinction, which was preserved 
even in the Bishops'. 


and airvpi^ in the miracles of feeding the five 
thousand and the four thousand respectively both 
translated baskets though the words are set over 
against each other in the evangelic narratives (Matt. 
xvi. 9, 10, Mark viii. 19, 20), and seem to point to 
a different nationality of the multitudes in the two 
cases ; of %>a and dijpia in the Apocalypse, both 
represented by beasts, though the one denotes the 
beings who. worship before the throne of heaven, 
and the other the monsters whose abode is the abyss 
beneath. For other instances, and generally for an 
adequate treatment of this branch of exegesis, I 
shall be content to refer to the works of Archbishop 
Trench and others ; but the following examples, out 
of many which might be given, will serve as further 
illustrations of the subject, which is far from being 

In John xiii. 23, 25 r\v Be dvaKei^evo^ el? e/c 
liaOrjTtoV avrov eV TO> /c6\7r&) rov 'I77<7o0. 
eVeti/09 oi/Vft)? eVl TO (rrrjOos TOU 'I^crou Xeyet 'Now there 
was leaning 011 Jesus' bosom one of his disciples... He 
then lying on Jesus' breast saith,' the English Version 
makes no distinction between the reclining position 
of the beloved disciple throughout the meal, described 
by az/a/ce///,ero5, and the sudden change of posture at 
this moment, introduced by avaireo-wv. This distinc- 
tion is further enforced in the original by a change 


in both the prepositions and the nouns, from eV 
to eW, and from Kokiros to o-rrjOos. S. John was 
reclining on the bosom of his Master, and he sud- 
denly threw back his head upon His breast to ask 
a question. Again in a later passage a reference 
occurs not to the reclining position but to the 
sudden movement 1 in xxi. 2O o? teal dveTreaev ev TO> 
SeLTTvq) eTrl TO GT?)6o<$ at/rod Kol elirev, where likewise 
it is misunderstood by our translators, 'which also 
leaned on his. breast and said/ This is among the 
most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which 
distinguish the narrative of the fourth Gospel gener- 
ally, and which are especially remarkable in these 
last scenes of Jesus' life, where the beloved dis- 
ciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It 
is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches 

1 The word cij>aTriirTu> occurs several times in the New Testament 
and always signifies a change of position, for indeed this idea is inherent 
in the word. It is used of a rower bending back for a fresh stroke 
(e.g. Polyb. i. 21. 2), of a horse suddenly checked and rearing (Plat. 
Phcedr. 254 B, E), of a guest throwing himself back on the couch or on 
the ground preparatory to a meal (Matt. xv. 35, John xiii. 12, etc). 

The received text of xiii. 25 runs, tiwre<rwi> 8e tKfwos eirl rb ffrrjdos 
/r.T.X., but the correct reading is as given above. The substitution of 
eTrnreffuv however does not tell in favour of our translators; for this 
word ought to have shown, even more clearly than avatreff&v, that a 
change of posture was intended. The OUTWS, which appears in the 
correct text and gives an additional touch to the picture, has a parallel 
in iv. 6 e/catfefcro ourws firl T$ ^1773. In xxi. 20 there is no various 

L. R. 6 


of the picture should be blurred in our English 

Again, in I Cor. xiv. 2O /in) TraiSia <yivecr6e rais 
(frpeplv, d\\d rfj icaKia vrjTrid^ere, much force is lost 
by the English rendering, ' Be not children in under- 
standing; howbeit in malice be ye children' In the 
original S. Paul is not satisfied that his converts 
should be merely children in vice ; they must be 
something less than this, they must be guileless as 
babes ; and we cannot afford to obliterate the dis- 
tinction between TracBla and vr/Tnoi. Again in this 
same chapter (ver. 7) o/-io>9 rd d^w^a favnv SiSovra... 
edv $iaa-To\r)v rot? (#0770*9 fJ*rj Sa> is translated, 'Even 
things without life giving sound... except they give 
a distinction in the sounds* where certainly different 
words should have been found for <a>i/r} and <t>06yyo<; ; 
and yet our translators did not fail through poverty 
of expression, for three verses below they have ren- 
dered (jxaval voices and afywvov without signification. 
In the margin they suggest tunes for fi&oyyois, and 
this would be preferable to retaining the same word. 
As $007709 is used especially of musical sounds, per- 
haps notes might be adopted. This is just a case 
where a word not elsewhere found in the English 
Bible might be safely introduced, because there is 
no incongruity which jars upon the ear. Again in 
the following chapter (xv. 40) crepa pev 77 rc5z/ 


pavlcov Sofa, erepa Se 77 rwv emyeLwv. a\\rj Sofa q 
Kal a\\rj Sofa 0-6X171/77?, KOI a\\rj Sofa dcrrepwv, the 
words aXX?? and erepa are translated alike, ' The glory 
of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial 
is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another 
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars.' 
Yet it is hardly to be doubted that S. Paul purposely 
uses erepa when he is speaking of things belonging to 
different classes, as errovpdvia and eTriyeta, and a'XX?7 
when he is speaking of things belonging to the same 
class, as the sun and moon and stars ; for this is the 
proper distinction between aXX?7 and erepa, that, 
whereas the former denotes simply distinction of 
individuals, the latter involves the secondary idea of 
difference of kind. In fact the change in the form of 
the sentence by which Sofa, Sofa, from being marked 
out as the subjects by the definite article and distin- 
guished by /jiev...Be in the first place, become simply 
predicates and are connected by Kal. . ./cal in the second, 
corresponds to the change from erepa to aXX?; in 
passing from the one to the other. These words 
aXXo?, ere/jo?, occur together more than once, and in 
all cases something is lost by effacing the distinction. 
In Gal. i. 6 6avada) ori.ovrco ra^eco? /jierarldeade... 
et? erepov evayyeXiov, o outc eanv aXXo, translated 
'I marvel that ye are so soon removed... unto another 
Gospel, which is not anotherl the sense would be 



brought out by giving each word its proper force ; 
and again in 2 Cor. xi. 4 a\\ov 'Iij&ovv Kripvcrcrei 
ov OVK etcrjpv^afjLev, rj 'rrvev/JLa erepov Xa/4/3az>ere o OVK 
eXdfiere, though the loss is less considerable, the dis- 
tinction might with advantage have been preserved. 
In these instances however a reviser might be deterred 
by the extreme difficulty in distinguishing the two, 
without introducing some modernism. In the passage 
first quoted (i Cor. xv. 40) the end might perhaps be 
attained by simply substituting ' other ' for ' another ' 
in rendering erepa. 

Still more important is it to mark the distinction 
between elvai a*nd ^Lveadai, where our translators have 
not observed it. Thus our English rendering of Joh. 
viii. 58, 'Before Abraham was, I am? loses half the 
force of the original, irplv 'Affpaajji, yevecrOai, eya> et/u, 
'Before Abraham was born, I am? The becoming only 
can be rightly predicated of the patriarch ; the being 
is reserved for the Eternal Son alone. Similar in 
kind, though less in degree, is the loss in the render- 
ing of Luke vi. 36 ylveo-Qe olfcrtp/jLoves, KaOci)? [ical] 6 
7rart}p vfjLO)v ol/crtpfjiwv eVrtV, ' J3e ye merciful, as your 
Father also is merciful.' Here also the original ex- 
presses the distinction between the imperfect effort 
and the eternal attribute 1 . 

1 In i Pet. i. 1 6 our translators, when they gave the rendering '/?<? 
ye holy, for I am holy,' had before them the reading crytot 


Illustrations of similar defects might be multiplied, 
though in many cases it is much easier to point out 
the fault, than to suggest the remedy. Thus such a 
rendering as 2 Cor. vii. 10 ' For godly sorrow worketh 
repentance (fieTavoiav) to salvation not to be repented 
of (dfiTafjL6\r]Tov) ' belongs to this class. Here the 
Geneva Testament has 'causeth amendment unto 
salvation not to be repented of/ and perhaps it were 
best in this instance to sacrifice the usual rendering of 
fierdvoia in order to preserve the distinction (unless 
indeed we are prepared to introduce the word 'regret' 
for fierafieXeia), especially as /-tera/Ae'Xecr&u in the con- 
text is consistently translated 'repent.' Again it 
were desirable to find some better rendering of Tracra 
Socri? uyaOrj /cal TTCLV &a>prjfjLa re\eiov in James i. 17 
than ' every good gift and every perfect gift! since a 
contemporary of S. James especially distinguishes 
Soo-t?, Sofia, from Scopov, Saped etc., saying that the 
latter are much stronger and involve the idea of mag- 
nitude and fulness which is wanting to the former 
(Philo Leg. All. iii. 70, p. 126 epfyacriv fieyeQovs 
review d*ja6v StyXovow /c.T.X. ; com p. de Cherub. 25, 
p. 154), and applying to them the very same epithet 
'perfect' which occurs in the passage before us. And 
yet the distinction would be dearly purchased at the 

5rt yu> 07405 el fit, but the correct text is ayt-oi Zveede, on t'yi ciytos 
(omitting ct>i). 


cost of an offensive Latinism. But whatever difficulty 
there may be in finding different renderings here, it was 
certainly not necessary in the sentence immediately 
preceding, 'When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth 
sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,' 
1} eTndvfiia crv\\a/3ov(ra rtWet afjbapriav, ?} Be apapTia 
uTroreKecrQeicra airoicvei Odvarov, either to obliterate a 
real distinction by giving the same rendering of TLicrei 
and aTTo/cvei or to create an artificial distinction by 
adopting different forms of sentences for 77 eTnOvpia 
av\\aftov(Ta and 77 apapTia u7rore\(T0ta-a. The Eng- 
lish might run ; ' Lust when it hath conceived bring- 
eth forth sin, and sin when it is perfected (or 'grown') 
gendereth death.' Again in Rom. xii. 2 ' Be not con- 
formed to this world, but be ye transformed by the 
renewing of your mind,' for /xr) o-vo-^rjfiarl^o-Oe raj 
alwvi rotrrft), XXa fJiCTa/JLOp^ovaOe rfj dvaxaivtoffei 
TOV 1/009 [vpwv], the English not only suggests an iden- 
tity of expression which has no place in the original 
but obliterates an important distinction between the 
(r^fia or fas/iion and the /J<OP<J)YJ or form, between 
the outward and transitory and the abiding and sub- 
stantial. We might translate ^77 (Tva-^fiari^eo-Oe K.T.\. 
' Be ye not fashioned after this world, but be ye trans- 
formed in the renewing, etc./ thus partially retracing 
our steps and following on the track of Tyndale's and 
other earlier Versions, which have ' Fashion not your- 


selves like unto this world/ and so preserve the distinc- 
tion of o-^rjfjLa and popfyr} (though they are not very 
happy in their rendering of ^erafiop^oixrOe c Be ye 
changed in your shape'). In this instance our trans- 
lators have followed the guidance of Wycliffe and the 
Rheims Version, which have conformed and reformed. 
In another passage, Phil. ii. 6 sq., where the distinction 
of floppy} and C^/MI is still more important, it is 
happily preserved in our Authorised Version ; ' being 
in the form of God, 1 'took upon him the form of a 
servant,' ' being found in fashion as a man/ 

In other cases, where it is even more important for 
the sense to observe the distinction of synonymes, we 
seem to have no choice but to acquiesce in the con- 
fusion. At an earlier stage of the language it might 
have been possible to establish different renderings, 
but now the English equivalents are so stereotyped 
that any change seems impossible. Thus the rendering 
of 8ta/3o\o9 and Saipoviov by the same word ' devil ' is 
a grievous loss ; and it is much to be regretted that 
Wycliffe's translation of ^aipoviov by ' fiend ' was not 
adopted by Tyndale, in which case it would probably 
have become the current rendering. Now the sense 
of incongruity would make its adoption impossible. 
Still greater misunderstanding arises from translating 
Hades the place of departed spirits, and Gehenna 
the place of fire and torment, by the same word 


'hell/ and thus confusing two ideas wholly distinct. 
In such a passage as Acts ii. 27, 31 the misconception 
thus created is very serious. Is it possible even now 
to naturalise the word Hades and give it a place in 
our Version ? Or must we be satisfied with pointing 
out in the margin in each case whether the word 
'hell' represents Hades or Gehenna? Another, though 
a less important instance, is the word ' temple/ which 
represents both i/ao? the inner shrine or sanctuary, 
and /e/>o/> the whole of the sacred precincts. Thus 
in the English Version an utter confusion of localities 
results from a combination of two such passages as 
Matt, xxiii. 35 'Whom ye slew between the temple 
(rov vaov) and the altar/ and Matt. xxi. 12 'Them 
that sold and bought in the temple' (eV T&> lepu>). In 
the first case for TOV vaov S. Luke (xi. 51) uses TOV 
oitcov 'the house/ the building which is, as it were, 
the abode of the Divine Presence ; but our English 
translators have boldly rendered even TOV OLKOV by 
' the temple.' More hopeless still is it to preserve the 
distinction between Qvcriao-Trjpiov the Jewish and /Jta/zo? 
the Heathen altar, the latter word occurring only once 
in the New Testament (Acts xvii. 23) and the poverty 
of our language obliging us there to translate it by 
the same word as Ova-iacrTrjpiov. 

The contrast of Jew and Gentile involved in these 
last words recalls another pair of synonymes, which 


present the same relation to each other and in which 
the distinction is equally impracticable, Xao? used 
especially of the chosen people and in contradistinction 
to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts iv. 25, 27, x. 2, xxi. 28, 
Rom. ix. 25, 26, i Pet. ii. 10, etc.), and Srjfj,o<; denoting 
the people of a heathen city and more particularly 
when gathered together in the popular assembly 
(e.g. at Caesarea, Acts xii. 22 1 ; at Thessalonica, Acts 
xvii. 5; at Ephesus, Acts xix. 30, 33). 


Another class of errors, far more numerous and 
much more easily corrected than the last, is due to 
the imperfect knowledge of Greek grammar in the 
age in which our translators lived. And here it is 
instructive to observe how their accuracy fails for the 
most part just at the point where the Latin language 
ceases to run parallel with the Greek. In two re- 
markable instances, at all events, this is the case. 
The Latin language has only one past tense where 

1 A heathen multitude, such as would naturally be found in a city 
which was the seat of the Roman government, is contemplated here, 
as the whole incident shows. Hence Tyndale and the later Versions 
rightly translate 0eoO ^WJ/TJ Kal of>< dvOpdirov (ver. 22) 'The voice of a 
god and not of a man,' where Wycliffe has ' The voice of God and not 
of man.' When the Jews of Caesarea are especially intended, 6 Xads is 
used instead of 6 5^/xoj ; Acts x. 2. 


the Greek has two ; a Roman was forced to translate 
e\d\7}rra and \e\d\rjrca by the same expression 'locutus 
sum.' Accordingly we find that our English trans- 
lators make no difference between the aorist and the 
perfect, apparently giving the most obvious rendering 
on each occasion and not being guided by any 
grammatical principle in the treatment of these tenses. 
Again the Latin language has no definite article; 
and correspondingly in our English Version its pre- 
sence or absence is almost wholly disregarded. 
Indeed it would hardly be an exaggeration to say 
that, if the translators had been left to supply or 
omit the definite article in every case according to 
the probabilities of the sense or the requirements 
of the English, without any aid from the Greek, the 
result would have been about as accurate as it is at 

I am not bringing any charge against the ability 
of our translators. To demand from them a know- 
ledge of Greek Grammar which their age did not 
possess would be to demand an impossibility. Accus- 
tomed to write and to speak in Latin, they uncon- 
sciously limited the range and capacity of the Greek 
by the measure of the classical language with which 
they were most familiarly acquainted. But our own 
more accurate knowledge may well be brought to 
bear to correct these deficiencies. Tyndale had said 


truly that ' the Greek tongue agreeth more with the 
English than the Latin'; and it should be our en- 
deavour to avail ourselves of this agreement and so 
to reproduce the meaning of the original with greater 
exactness. I hope to show, before I have done, that 
it is no mere pedanti(i affectation which would prompt 
us to correct these faults ; but that important inter- 
ests, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes historical, are 
involved in their adjustment. 

I. Under the head of faulty grammar, the tenses 
deserve to be considered first. And here I will begin 
with the defect on which I have already touched 
the confusion of the aorist and the perfect. It is not 
meant to assert that the aorist can always be rendered 
by an aorist and the perfect by a perfect in English 1 . 
No two languages coincide exactly in usage, and 
allowance must be made for the difference. But still 
I think it will be seen that our Version may be greatly 
improved in this respect without violence to the 
English idiom. 

Thus in John i. 3 %pi? avrov eyevero ovBe ev o 
yeyovcv, or in 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18 fjiij nva v dire- 
7T/30? Vfid^, &i avrov 67r\eove/cTr)a 
TYroi/, Kal <rvva7reo'Ti,\a TOV 

1 A comparison of English with the languages of continental Europe 
will illustrate the difference of idiom in this respect. 


or in Col. i. 16, 17 ev avraj etcricOrj rd 7rdvra...rd 
TrdvTO, &i avrou /ecu eh avrov $KTi<rTai, is there any 
reason why the tenses should not have been pre- 
served, so that the distinction between the historical 
fact and the permanent result would have appeared 
in all three cases ? Yet our translators have ren- 
dered eyevero, yeyovev equally by 'was made' in 
the first passage, aTre'crraX/ta, a-TrecrretXa by ' I sent ' 
in the second, and e/crla-drj, e/cTia-Tcu by 'were created' 
in the third. Again in I John iv. 9, IO, 14 aTrecrraA- 
icev, aTreVretXez/, aTrearakKev, are all rendered in an 
aoristic sense 'he sent/ though the appropriateness 
of either tense in its own context is sufficiently 
noticeable. On the other hand, in an exactly par- 
allel case, I Cor. ix. 22 eyevo/Jirjv rot? daQeveaiv d<r6evr)<; 
'iva. rot)? do-Bevels /cepSij(ra)' rot? iracnv yeyova irdvra, 
where in like manner the aorist gives an isolated past 
incident, and the perfect sums up the total present 
result, the distinction of tenses is happily preserved, 
'To the weak became I weak that I might gain the 
weak : I am made all things to all men ' : though * I 
am become 1 would have been preferable, as preserving 
the same verb in both cases. But I fear that this 
correct rendering must be ascribed to accident: for 
the hap-hazard way in which these tenses are treated 
will appear as well from the instances already quoted 
as from such a passage as 2 Cor. vii. 13, 14; 'There- 


fore we were comforted (7rapaKetc\ri/j,0a) in your 
comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we 
(tydpij/Mv) for the joy of Titus, because his spirit 
was refreshed (avaireiravrai) by you all. For if I 
have boasted (KeKav-^^ai) any thing to him of you, 
I am not ashamed (^Karrja-^vvd^v) ; but as we spake 
(e\a\r]cra^ev) all things to you in truth, even so our 
boasting, which I made before Titus ([?}] eVl TiVou), is 
found (eyevrjOr)} a truth.' 

Such passages as these bring out this weakness of 
our translation the more strikingly because the tenses 
appear in juxta-position. But it is elsewhere that the 
most serious injury is inflicted on the sense. I will 
give examples of the aorist first ; and I hope to make 
it clear that more than the interests of exact scholar- 
ship are concerned in the accurate rendering. 

If I read S. Paul aright, the correct understand- 
ing of whole paragraphs depends on the retention 
of the aoristic sense, and the substitution of a per- 
fect confuses his meaning, obliterating the main idea 
and introducing other conceptions which are alien 
to the passages. As illustrations of this, take two 
passages, Rom. vi. I sq., Col. ii. n sq. In the first 
passage, aireOavopev (ver. 2), e^airriaO^fiev (ver. 3), 
rjfjiev (ver. 4), frvvea-ravptoOr} (ver. 6), a-TrtOdvo- 
(ver. 8), VTrrj/covcrare (ver. 17), e&ovXtoOrjTe -HJ Si- 
Kaio<Tvvr) (ver. 18), eXevOepwQevrcs UTTO 


TOJ e&> (ver. 22), edavaTaid'rjre (vii. 4), 
KaTr)pyt)6r)/Ji6v, aTroOavovres (ver. 6). In the second 
passage, TrepieT/jLrjdrjre (ii. Ii), o-vvTCKJzevres, o-vvrjyep- 
6rjT6 (ver. 12), <rvvect)07rol'r)(rv (ver. 13), eSeiyfidrKrev 
(ver. 15), aTreOdvere (ver. 20), avvrjjepdrjre (iii. i), aTre- 
Odvere (ver. 3). Now the consistency with which S. 
Paul uses the aorist in these two doctrinal passages 
which treat of the same subject (scarcely ever inter- 
posing a perfect, and then only for exceptional rea- 
sons which are easily intelligible) is very remarkable ; 
'Ye died, ye were buried, ye were raised, ye were 
made alive ' ; and the argument might be very much 
strengthened by reference to other passages where 
the Apostle prefers the aorist in treating of the same. 
topics 1 . In short, S. Paul regards this change from 
sin to righteousness, from bondage to freedom, from 
death to life as summed up in one definite act of 
the past; potentially to all men in our Lord's Pas- 
sion and Resurrection, actually to each individual 
man when he accepts Christ, is baptized into Christ. 
Then he is made righteous by being incorporated 
into Christ's righteousness, he dies once for all to 
sin, he lives henceforth for ever to God. This is the 

1 For instance Gal. ii. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, iii. 3, 27, v. 13, 24 (oi rou 
Xpiorou rip ffopKa tffTavpuxrav), Ephes. i. ii, 13, ii. 5, 6 (<rvvefuoiroli}arti>, 
ffvvriyfipev, ffWKaj9i<Tv), 13, 14, iv. I, 4, 7, 30 (to-QpaylffdijTe), Col. i. 13 
(fy/>i5<raTo, iJ.fT^Tr}fffv), iii. 15, 2 Tim. i. 7, 9, Tit. iii. 5 (fouacit) : see 
also i Pet. i. 3, 18, ii. 21, iii. 9. 


ideal. Practically we know that the death to sin 
and the life to righteousness are inchoate, imperfect, 
gradual, meagrely realised even by the most saintly 
of men in this life : but S. Paul sets the matter in 
this ideal light, to force upon the consciences of his 
hearers the fact that an entire change came over 
them when they became Christians, that the know- 
ledge and the grace then vouchsafed to them did 
not leave them where they were, that they are not 
and cannot be their former selves, and that it is a 
contradiction of their very being to sin any more. 
It is the definiteness, the absoluteness of this change, 
considered as a historical crisis, which forms the cen- 
tral idea of S. Paul's teaching, and which the aorist 
marks. We cannot therefore afford to obscure this 
idea by disregarding the distinctions of grammar. Yet 
in our English Version it is a mere chance whether in 
such cases the aorist is translated as an aorist 

The misconception which arises from this neglect 
of the aorist has vitally affected the interpretation 
of one passage. In 2 Cor. v. 14 ' If one died for all, 
then were d\\dead* ([et] efc virep TTCLVTWV direOavev, apa 
ol 7raz/T9 aireOavov), our Version substitutes the state 
of death for the fact of dying, and thus interprets the 
death to be a death through sin instead of a death 
to sin. The reference in the context to the old 
things passing away, and the language of S. Paul 


elsewhere, e.g. Rom. vi. 2, 8, viii. 6, Col. ii. 20, iii. 3, 
already quoted, seem to show that the true sense 
is what would naturally be suggested by the correct 
rendering of the aorist ; that all men have participated 
potentially in Christ's death, have died with Him 
to their former selves and to sin, and are therefore 
bound to lead a new life 1 . 

Not very unlike the passages, which I have been 
considering, is Acts xix. 2 el Trvev/jua ajiov eXa/3ere 
Trio-rev cravres, which our translators give ' Have ye 
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? 1 It 
should run 'Did ye receive the Holy Ghost, when 
ye believed ?' for the aorist of TrurTevew is used very 
commonly, not of the continuous state of belief, but 
of the definite act of accepting the faith ; e.g. Acts 
xi. 17, Rom. xiii. u, I Cor. iii. 5, xv. 2, Gal. ii. 7, etc. 

The instances which have been given hitherto 
more or less directly affect doctrine. In the two 
next examples, which occur in quotations from the 
Old Testament, a historical connexion is severed by 
the mistranslation of the aorist. In Matt. ii. 15 ef 

1 The only passages which would seem to favour the other interpre- 
tation are I Cor. xv. 22 ev ry 'ASa/x, irdvrcs<ydvf)<rKov<nv and Rom. v. 
15 el yap rip TOV evbs 7rapa7rre&/m oi iroXXol airtdavov. Yet even if 
this interpretation were adopted, the aoristic sense of dirtOavov ought to 
be preserved; because the potential death of all men in Adam corre- 
sponds to the potential life of all men in Christ, and is regarded as having 
been effected once for all in Adam's transgression, as in Rom. v. 15. 


e/cd\e<7a rbv vibv JJLOV is rendered 'Out of 
Egypt have I called my son ' : but turning to the 
original passage in Hosea (xi. i) we find that the 
proper aoristic sense must be restored ; ' When Israel 
was a child, then I loved him, and called my son 
out of Egypt/ Again in 2 Cor. iv. 13 eiricrrevaa $10 
\d\rja-a is given 'I believed and therefore have I 
spoken? a rendering unsuited to its position in the 
LXX of Ps. cxvi. 10 (cxv. i), whence it is quoted. 

Such examples as these however are very far from 
exhausting the subject. In one passage the aorist 
KTTJaacrdat, is treated as if /ce/crrjcrQai, and rendered 
' possess ' instead of ' acquire/ in defiance of a distinc- 
tion which it does not require the erudition of Lord 
Macaulay's schoolboy to appreciate: Luke xxi. IQ iv 
rfj vTrofjLovfj v/j,(t)V KTijaaarOe [1. KTT/crecr^e] r9 ^v^a? 
vp&v, ' In your patience possess ye your souls/ Errors 
however occur also in this same word in I Thess. iv. 
4 where the present is similarly treated, el&evai /ca- 
GTOV V/JLWV TO eavTov crKvos KTaadat ev ayiaa/jLO) /cal 
rifjifj, 'that every one of you should know how to pos- 
sess his vessel in sanctification and honour'; and again 
in Luke xviii. 12 where oaa KTwpai is translated 'all 
that I possess ' : and thus it seems probable that the 
mistake first arose from a misapprehension of the 
meaning of KracrOai rather than from a direct confu- 
sion of tenses. Yet even so this very misapprehen- 
L. R. 7 


sion must have been owing to the inability to see 
how the sense ' possess ' is derived from the proper 
force of the perfect 1 . 

The treatment of the perfect is almost equally 
faulty with the treatment of the aorist. Thus in 
I Cor. xv. 4 sq. S. Paul lays the stress of his argument 
on the fact that Christ is risen. This perfect eyrfyep- 
Tai is repeated six times within a few verses (vv. 4, 12, 
13, 14, 1 6, 17, 20), while the aorist TJyepBrj is not once 
used. The point is not that Christ once rose from the 
grave, but that having risen He lives for ever, as a 
first-fruit or earnest of the resurrection. Indeed the 
contrast between the tenses ort erd^ij KOI on 777- 
yeprai (ver. 4) throws out this idea in still stronger 
relief. In the I3th and following verses this con- 
ception becomes so patent on the face of S. Paul's 
language that our translators could not fail to see it, 
and accordingly from this point onward the perfect 
is correctly translated : but the fact that in the two 
earliest instances where it occurs (vv. 4, 12) eyrjyeprcu 

1 In Matt. x. 9 /J.TJ KTJ<rr)<rde xpu0-di>, t^ e older Versions generally 
render KT-fia-rjadc by ' possess,' for which the A. V. substitutes ' pro- 
vide,' with the marginal alternative 'get'; and in Acts i. 18 e/crTjcraro 
Xuptov the oldest Versions have ' hath possessed,' for which the A. V. 
(after the Bishops' and Geneva Bibles) substitutes ' purchased.' These 
facts seem to show that the proper distinction between KTaadat and 
KeKTrjadai (which latter does not occur in the New Testament) was 
beginning to dawn upon Biblical scholars. 


is treated as an aorist, ' he rose,' shows that they did 
not regard the rules of grammar, but were guided 
only by the apparent demands of the sense. Another 
example, closely allied to the last, occurs in Heb. vii. 
14, 22. The context lays stress on the unchangeable 
priesthood ; ' Thou art a priest for ever,' ' He con- 
tinueth ever' (vv. 21, 24). Hence in ver. 14 the writer 
says 7rp6$r)\ov on ef 'lovSa dvareraX/cev 6 Ki?/uo? 
tffj,Q}v, and in ver. 22 Kara TOGOVTO KOI Kpeirrovos Bta- 
6riK7)<s yeyovev eyyvos 'Irjaovs. But these references to 
present existence are obliterated in the A. V., which 
substitutes aorists in both cases, ' Our Lord sprang 
out of Juda,' ' was Jesus made a surety.' 

These instances have a more or less direct doc- 
trinal bearing. The examples, which shall be given 
next, are important in a historical aspect. In the 
passage (2 Cor. xii. 2 sq.), in which S. Paul describes 
the visions vouchsafed to one ' caught up to the third 
heaven,' it can hardly be doubted that he refers to 
himself. This appears not only from the connexion 
of the context, but also (in the original) from the 
mode of expression, olSa civOpwirov, olSa TOV TOLOVTOV 
avOpuTTov. I have already pointed out (p. 43) the 
capricious variations in the renderings of olSa, olB'ev, in 
the context of this passage. But in these two clauses 
our translators are not only capricious but absolutely 
wrong, for they give to olSa an aoristic sense which 



it cannot possibly have, * I knew a man,' ' I knew such 
a man f ; thus disconnecting the actual speaker from 
the object of the vision, and suggesting to the 
English reader the idea that the Apostle is speaking 
of some past acquaintance. 

Again S. Matthew in three several passages (i. 22, 
xxi. 4, xxvi. 56) introduces a reference to prophecies 
in the Old Testament, which have had their fulfilment 
in incidents of the Gospel history, by the words rovro 
Se [oXoz/] yeyovev iva TrXypwQfi (or 'iva ir\r]pw6(Tiv) 
K.T.\. In all three passages, it will be observed, the 
Evangelist has the perfect yeyovev f is come to pass ' ; 
and in all three our English Version gives it as an 
aorist t ivas done.' Now it cannot be urged (as it 
might with some plausibility in the case of the Apo- 
calypse) that S. Matthew is careless about the use of 
the aorist and the perfect, or that he has any special 
fondness for yeyovev. On the contrary, though the 
aorist (eyevero, yeveaOai, etc.) frequently occurs in this 
Gospel, there are not many examples of the perfect 
yeyovev ; and in almost every instance our Version is 
faulty. In xix. 8 anr dp^rj? ov yeyovev oi/ro>9 the 
aoristic rendering ' From the beginning it was not so ' 
entirely misleads the English reader as to the sense ; 
in xxiv. 2 1 oia ov yeyovev air dpxfjs, ' Such as hath not 
been from the beginning/ would (I suppose) be uni- 
versally accepted as an improvement on the present 


translation 'Such as was not from the beginning'; 
and lastly in xxv. 6 Kpavyrj yeyovev, the startling 
effect of the sudden surprise is expressed by the 
change of tense from the aorist, ' a cry is raised' and 
ought not to be neglected. When therefore this 
Evangelist in three distinct places introduces the 
fulfilment of a prophecy by yiyovev, the fact cannot 
be without meaning. In two of these passages editors 
sometimes attach the TOVTO Se o\ov yeyovev to the words 
of the previous speaker of the angel in i. 22 and of 
our Lord in xxvi. 56 in order to explain the perfect. 
But this connexion is very awkward even in these two 
cases, and wholly out of the question in the remaining 
instance (xxi. 4). Is not the true solution this ; that 
these tenses preserve the freshness of the earliest 
catechetical narrative of the Gospel history, when the 
narrator was not so far removed from the fact that it 
was unnatural for him to say 'This is come to pass'? 
I find this hypothesis confirmed when I turn to the 
Gospel of S. John. He too adopts a nearly identical 
form of words on one occasion to introduce a prophecy, 
but with a significant change of tense; xix. 36 eyevero 
yap ravra f iva TJ ypafyrj Tr\r)pw9f). To one writing at 
the close of the century, the events of the Lord's life 
would appear as a historic past ; and so the yeyovev 
of the earlier Evangelist is exchanged for the eyevero 
of the later. 


An able American writer on the English language, 
criticizing a previous effort at revision, remarks some- 
what satirically that, judging from this revised version, 
the tenses 'are coming to have in England a force 
which they have not now in America 1 .' Now I have 
already conceded that allowance must be made from 
time to time for difference of idiom in rendering 
aorists and perfects : and I do not know to what 
passages in the revision issued by the Five Clergy- 
men this criticism is intended to apply. But it is 
important that our new revisers should not defer 
hastily to such authority, and close too eagerly with 
a license which may be abused. The fact is, that 
our judgment in this matter is apt to be misled by 
two disturbing influences : we must be on our guard 
alike against the idola fort and against the idola 

First, the language of the Authorised Version 
is so wrought into the fabric of our minds by long 
habit, that the corresponding conception is firmly 
lodged there also. Thus it happens that when a 
change of words is offered to us, we unconsciously 
apply the new words to the old conception and are 

1 Marsh's Lectures on the English Language no. xxviii. p. 633, 
speaking of the translation of S. John by the Five Clergymen. The 
passage is quoted by Bp. Ellicott (Revision of the English New Testament 
p. 13), who seems half disposed to acquiesce in the justice of the 


dissatisfied with them because they seem incongru- 
ous ; and perhaps we conclude that English idiom is 
violated because they do not mean what we expect 
them to mean, not being prepared to make the 
necessary effort required to master the new concep- 
tion involved in them. Ido la fort omnium molestissima 
sunt quae ex foedere verborum et nominum se insinua- 
runt in intellect inn. 

But secondly, the idols of our cave are scarcely 
less misleading than the idols of the market-place. 
Living in the middle of the nineteenth century, we 
cannot without an effort transfer ourselves to the 
modes of thought and of language, which were com- 
mon in the first. The mistranslation from which 
this digression started affords a good instance of 
this source of misapprehension. We should not our- 
selves say ' This is come to pass,' in referring to facts 
which happened more than eighteen centuries ago, 
and therefore we oblige the eye-witnesses to hold 
our own language and say 'This came to pass.' 

From the perfect tense I pass on to the present. 
And here I find a still better illustration of the errors 
into which we are led by following the idola specus. 
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the sacred writer, 
when speaking of the temple services and the Mosaic 
ritual, habitually uses the present tense : e.g. ix. 6, 7, 
9 eiariaaiv ol iepels, irpocr^epei, inrep eavrov, Swpd 


re teal Ova-Lai, TrpocrfyepovTat,, x. I Overlap a? 
(frepovcriv. Now I do not say that this is absolutely 
conclusive as showing that the Epistle was written 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is certainly 
a valuable indication of an early date and should 
not have been obliterated. Yet our translators in 
such cases almost invariably substitute a past tense, 
as in the passages just quoted, * the priests went in/ 
' he offered for himself,' * were offered both gifts and 
sacrifices/ ' sacrifices which they offered! And simi- 
larly in ix. 1 8 they render eyKe/calvio-rai, 'was dedi- 
cated/ and in ix. 9 TOV icaipov TOV eveo-rr)KOTa ' the 
time then present/ Only in very rare instances do 
they allow the present to stand, and for the most 
part in such cases alone where it has no direct his- 
torical bearing. The temple worship was a thing 
of the remote past to themselves in the seventeenth 
century, and they forced the writer of the Epistle to 
speak their own language. 

Another and a more important example of the 
present tense is the rendering of ol crw^ofjievot,. In 
the language of the New Testament salvation is 
a thing of the past, a thing of the present, and a 
thing of the future. S. Paul says sometimes ' Ye (or 
we) were saved' (Rom. viii. 24), or 'Ye have been 
saved' (Ephes. ii. 5, 8), sometimes 'Ye are being 
saved' (i Cor. xv. 2), and sometimes 'Ye shall be 


saved' (Rom. x. 9, 13). It is important to observe 
this, because we are thus taught that crwrypla involves 
a moral condition which must have begun already, 
though it will receive its final accomplishment here- 
after. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. 
And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce 
of morality and religion must be fostered and en- 
couraged by failing to note this and so laying the 
whole stress either on the past or on the future on 
the first call or on the final change. It is there- 
fore important that the idea of salvation as a rescue 
from sin through the knowledge of God in Christ, 
and therefore a progressive condition, a present state, 
should not be obscured ; and we cannot but regret 
such a translation as Acts ii. 47 'The Lord added 
to the Church daily such as should be savedl where 
the Greek 7-01)5 aw*oiievovs implies a different idea. 
In other passages, Luke xiii. 23, I Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. 
ii. 15, Rev. xxi. 24 (omitted in some texts), where ol 
crw^ofjievoL occurs, the renderings ' be saved, are saved' 
may perhaps be excused by the requirements of the 
English language, though these again suggest rather 
a complete act than a continuous and progressive 

In other cases the substitution of a past tense 
inflicts a slighter, but still a perceptible injury. It 
obscures the vividness of the narrative or destroys 


the relation of the sentences. Thus in Matt. iii. I, 
13, the appearing of John the Baptist and of our 
Lord is introduced in the same language: ev feu? 
ripepais eiceivai,? tr a p ay iv er a i *\(odvvr)<s 6 /SaTTTKTT?/?, 
and Tore irapaylverai, 6 'Irjcrovs. It is a misfortune 
that we are obliged to translate the expression Trapa- 
ryiveTat, by the very ordinary word 'come': but the 
English Version by rendering the first sentence ' In 
those days came John/ while it gives the second 
correctly 'Then cometh Jesus,' quite unnecessarily 
impairs both the vigour and the parallelism of the 
narrative. Exactly similar to this last instance is 
another in S. Luke vii. 33, 34, e\rj\.v6ev jap *lwdvvr)<; 
6 f3a7m<rTri<;...e\r)\v0ev 6 wo<? TOV dvdpwirov, where 
again the first e\r)\v0ev is translated came, the second 
is come. 

In rendering imperfect tenses, it is for the most 
part impossible to give the full sense without encum- 
bering the English idiom unpleasantly. But in ex- 
ceptional usages, as for instance where the imperfect 
has the inchoate, tentative force, its meaning can be 
preserved without any such sacrifice, and ought not 
to be obliterated. Thus in Luke i. 59 eicd\ovv avro 
Zaxapiav is not ' They called it (the child) Zacharias,' 
but 'They were for calling it,' 'They would have 
called it' Closely allied to this is the conditional 
sense of the imperfect, which again our English 


translators have rendered inadequately or not at all. 
Thus in Gal. iv. 20 rjdeXov Be Trapelvai Trpo? v/j,ds apri 
is not ' I desire to be present with you now,' as our 
translators have it, but ' I could have desired,' and in 
Matt. iii. 14 6 'Icodvvrjs Sie/ccoXvev avrov is not 'John 
forbade him/ but * John would have hindered him.' 
Again in Rom. ix. 3 rjv^ojjirjv yap dvdOe/jia elvat, avros 
eyco diro rov Xptcrroi) the moral difficulty disappears, 
when the words are correctly translated, not as the 
English Version ' I could wish that myself were 
accursed for Christ,' but ' I could have wished/ etc. ; 
because the imperfect itself implies that it is im- 
possible to entertain such a wish, things being what 
they are. Again in Acts xxv. 22 e/3ov\6/jLrjv teal 
CWTO? rov dvOpwirov aicovcrai, the language of Agrip- 
pa is much more courteous and delicate than our 
English Version represents it. He does not say * I 
would also hear the man myself/ but ' I myself also 
could have wisJied to hear the man/ if the favour had 
not been too great to ask. Elsewhere our Version is 
more accurate, e.g. Acts vii. 26 crvvri\\a<T(Tev avrovs 
et? elprjvrjv ' would have set them at one again 1 .' 

2. If the rendering of the tenses affords wide 
scope for improvement, this is equally the case with 
the treatment of the definite article. And here again 

1 Here however our translators appear to have read <rvrf\a.<rv, so 
that their accuracy is purely accidental. 


I think it will be seen that theology is almost as 
deeply concerned as scholarship in the correction of 
errors. In illustration let me refer to the passage 
which the great authority of Bentley brought into 
prominence, and which has often been adduced since 
his time. In Rom. v. 15 19 there is a sustained 
contrast between ' the one (6 el?)' and ' tlie many 
(ot TToXXoi),' but in the English Version the definite 
article is systematically omitted : ' If through the 
offence of one many be dead/ and so throughout 
the passage, closing with, ' For as by one mans 
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the 
obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' 
In place of any comment of my own, I will quote 
Bentley 's words. Pleading for the correct rendering 
he says ; ' By this accurate version some hurtful 
mistakes about partial redemption and absolute re- 
probation had been happily prevented. Our English 
readers had then seen, what several of the fathers 
saw and testified, that 01 TroXXot the many, in an 
antithesis to the one, are equivalent to Trai/re? all in 
ver. 12 and comprehend the whole multitude, the 
entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one 1 ' 
In other words the benefits of Christ's obedience 
extend to all men potentially. It is only human 
self-will which places limits to its operation. 

1 Bentley's Works III. p. 244 (cd. Dycc). 


Taken in connexion with a previous illustration 
(p. 93 sq.), this second example from the Epistle to 
the Romans will enable us to estimate the amount 
of injury which is inflicted on S. Paul's argument 
by grammatical inaccuracies. Both the two great 
lines of doctrinal teaching respecting the Redemption, 
which run through this Epistle the one relating to the 
mode of its operation, the other to the extent of its appli- 
cation are more or less misrepresented in our English 
Version owing to this cause. The former is obscured, 
as we saw, by a confusion of tenses ; while the latter 
is distorted by a disregard of the definite article. 

This however is the usual manner of treating 
the article when connected with TroXXol and similar 
words; e.g. Matt. xxiv. 12 'The love of many shall 
wax cold,' where the picture in the original is much 
darker, rwv 7ro\\d)v 'the many/ the vast majority 
of the disciples ; or again Phil. i. 14 ' And many of the 
brethren in the Lord waxing confident/ where the 
error is even greater, for S. Paul distinctly writes 
TOI)? TrXetoua? 'the greater part.' Similarly also it 
is neglected before XCHTTO? : e.g. Luke xxiv. 10 'And 
other women that were with them' (al \onral crvv 
aurat?) ; I Cor. ix. 5 * To lead about a sister, a wife, 
as well as other apostles' (eo? KOL ol Xeuvrot aTrooroXot) ; 
2 Cor. xii. 13 'Ye were inferior to other churches' 
(ra? X(H7r9 efctc\r)<rias)', in all which passages historical 


facts are obscured or perverted by the neglect of the 
article. And again in 2 Cor. ii. 6, where 77 eVm/u'a 
wuTt] r) VTTO rouv iT\ei6v(ov is rendered ' this punishment 
which was inflicted of manyl the conception of a 
regular judicial assembly, in which the penalty is 
decided by the vote of the majority, disappears. 

Nor is the passage quoted by Bentley the only 
example in which the broad features of S. Paul's 
teaching suffer from an indifference to the presence 
or the absence of the definite article. The distinc- 
tion between i/o/^o? and 6 1/0/^09 is very commonly 
disregarded, and yet it is full of significance. Be- 
hind the concrete representation the Mosaic law 
itself S. Paul sees an imperious principle, an over- 
whelming presence, antagonistic to grace, to liberty, 
to spirit, and (in some aspects) even to life abstract 
law, which, though the Mosaic ordinances are its 
most signal and complete embodiment, nevertheless 
is not exhausted therein, but exerts its crushing 
power over the conscience in diverse manifestations. 
The one the concrete and special is 6 z/o/ito? ; the 
other the abstract and universal is vopos. To the 
full understanding of such passages as Rom. ii. 12 sq., 
iii. 19 sq., iv. 13 sq., vii. I sq., Gal. iii. 10 sq., and in- 
deed to an adequate conception of the leading idea 
of S. Paul's doctrine of law and grace, this distinc- 
tion is indispensable. 


The Gospels again will furnish illustrations of a 
somewhat different kind. To us ' Christ ' has become 
a proper name, and, as such, rejects the definite 
article. But in the Gospel narratives, if we except 
the headings or prefaces and the after-comments 
of the Evangelists themselves (e.g. Matt. i. i, Mark 
i. i, John i. 17), no instance of this usage can be 
found. In the body of the narratives we read only 
of 6 Xpio-Tos, the Christ, the Messiah, whom the 
Jews had long expected, and who might or might 
not be identified with the person 'Jesus,' accord- 
ing to the spiritual discernment of the individual. 
X/3tc7T09 is nowhere connected with 'Irjcrovs in the 
Gospels with the exception of John xvii. 3, where 
it occurs in a prophetic declaration of our Lord iva 
<yLvwcTKwariv TOV JJLOVOV d\rjdivov eoz> KOI ov aTretrretXa? 
'1*70-01)1; Xpia-rov ; nor is it used without the de- 
finite article in more than four passages, Mark ix. 41 
ez> ovofjiari on XpiaTov eVre, Luke ii. 1 1 arwrrjp os e<rriv 
XpWTo? Kupto?, xxiii. 2 \eyovra eavrov XpiaTov, John 
ix. 22 avrov 6/j,o\oyr)(rrj ~Kpia-r6v, where the very ex- 
ceptions strengthen the rule. The turning-point is 
the Resurrection : then and not till th&n we hear of 
' Jesus Christ ' from the lips of contemporary speakers 
(Acts ii. 38, iii. 6), and from that time forward Christ 
begins to be used as a proper name, with or with- 
out the article. This fact points to a rule which 


should be strictly observed in translation. In the 
Gospel narratives 6 Xpio-ros should always be ren- 
dered * the Christ,' and never 'Christ' simply. In 
some places our translators have observed this (e.g. 
Matt. xxvi. 63, Mark viii. 29), and occasionally they 
have even overdone the translation, rendering 6 
Xptcrro9 by l that Christ* John i. 25, [vi. 69], or * tlie 
very Christ ' John vii. 26 ; but elsewhere under exactly 
the same conditions the article is omitted, e.g. Matt, 
xvi. 1 6, xxiv. 5, Luke xxiii. 35, 39, etc. Yet the ad- 
vantage of recognising its presence even in extreme 
cases, where at first sight it seems intrusive, would 
be great. In such an instance as that of Herod's 
enquiry, Matt. ii. 4 TTOV 6 X/otoTo? yevvarai, ' Where 
Christ should be born,' probably all would acknow- 
ledge the advantage of substituting ' the Christ ' ; but 
would not the true significance of other passages, where 
the meaning is less obvious, be restored by the 
change ? Thus in Matt. xi. 2 6 Be ^\u>dvwri<$ aKovaras eV 
TO) e<7/zo>T77jCHft> TO, pya TOV XpicrTov, the Evangelist's 
meaning is not that the Baptist heard what Jesus 
was doing, but that he was informed of one per- 
forming those works of mercy and power which the 
Evangelic prophet had foretold as the special func- 
tion of the Messiah 1 . I have studiously confined 

1 I find that the view, which is here maintained, of the use of 
Xpi<7Tos and 6 X/>WT6$ is different alike from that of Middleton (Greek 


the rigid application of this rule to the historical 
portions of the Gospels and excepted the Evange- 
lists' own prefaces and comments : but even in these 
latter a passage is occasionally brought out with much 
greater force by understanding rov ^Kpiarov to apply 
to the ofnce rather than the individual, and translat- 
ing it 'the Christ/ In the genealogy of S. Matthew 
for instance, where the generations are divided sym- 
metrically into three sets of fourteen, the Evangelist 
seems to connect the last of each set with a critical 
epoch in the history of Israel ; the first reaching from 
the origin of the race to the commencement of the 
monarchy (ver. 6 * David the king') ; the second from 
the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity 
in Babylon ; the third and last from the captivity 
to the coming of the Messiah, the Christ (eo>9 TOV 
XpicrTov). Connected with the title of the Messiah is 
that of the prophet who occupied a large space in the 
Messianic horizon of the Jews the prophet whom 
Moses had foretold, conceived by some to be the 
Messiah himself, by others an attendant in his train. 
In one passage only (John vii. 40) is 6 TT/JO^TT??, so 
used, rightly given in our Version. In the rest (John 

Article on Mark ix. 41) and from those of others whom he criticizes. I 
should add that I wrote all these paragraphs relating to the definite 
article without consulting Middleton, and without conscious reminiscence 
of his views on any of the points discussed. 

L. R. 8 


i. 21, 25, vi. 14) its force is weakened by the exag- 
gerated rendering ' that prophet'; while in the margin 
of i. 21 (as if to show how little they understood the 
exigencies of the article) our translators have offered 
an alternative, 'Art thou a prophet ?' 

As relating to the Person and Office of Christ 
another very important illustration presents itself. 
In Col. i. 19 S. Paul declares that ev avr<p evSotcrjo-ev 
irav TO 7r\ripa)/jLa /caToitcfjacu, which is rendered 'For 
it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness 
dwell.' Here an important theological term is sup- 
pressed by the omission of the article ; for TO TrX?;- 
pwfjLa is ' the fulness/ ' the plenitude,' pleroma being a 
recognised expression to denote the totality of the 
Divine powers and attributes (John i. 16, Eph. i. 23, 
iii. 19, iv. 13, Col. ii. 9), and one which afterwards 
became notorious in the speculative systems of the 
Gnostic sects. And with this fact before us, it is 
a question whether we should not treat TO irKt'jp^^a 
as a quasi-personality and translate * In Him all the 
Fulness was pleased to dwell,' thus getting rid of the 
ellipsis which our translators have supplied by the 
Father in italics; but at all events the article must 
be preserved. 

Again, more remotely connected with our Lord's 
office is another error of omission. It is true of 
Christianity, as it is true of no other religious system, 


that the religion is identified with, is absorbed in, the 
Person of its founder. The Gospel is Christ and 
Christ only. This fact finds expression in many 
ways : but more especially in the application of the 
same language to the one and to the other. In most 
cases this identity of terms is equally apparent in the 
English and in the Greek. But in one instance it is 
obliterated by a mistranslation of the definite article. 
Our Lord in S. John's Gospel, in answer to the dis- 
ciple's question ' How can we know the wayT answers 
'I am the way* (xiv. 5, 6). Corresponding to this we 
ought to find that in no less than four places in the 
Acts of the Apostles the Gospel is called ' the way' 
absolutely; ix. 2 ' If he found any that were of the 
way (lav TWCLS evprj 7779 6&ov of/ra?)'; xix. 9 'Divers 
believed not, but spake evil of the way'] xix. 23 
( There arose no small stir about the way'] xxiv. 22 
'Having more perfect knowledge of the way'] but in 
all these passages the fact disappears in the English 
Version, which varies the rendering between * this 
way' and * that way,' but never once translates ryv 
6S6v 'the way.' 

But more especially are these omissions of the 
article frequent in those passages which relate to 
the Second Advent and its accompanying terrors or 
glories. The imagery of this great crisis was defi-. 
nitely conceived, and as such the Apostles refer to it. 



In the Epistles to the Thessalonians more especially 
S. Paul mentions having repeatedly dwelt on these 
topics to his converts ; ' Remember ye not, that, when 
I was yet with you, I told you these things ?' (2 Thess. 
ii. 5). Accordingly, he appeals to incidents connected 
with the Second Advent, as known facts : eav JJLT) e\6r) 
r) diroGTacria trpwrov /cal dTrotcaXvfyBfi o avOpwiros T^9 
a/jLaprla? \v. L afo/z/a?] ' Except the falling away come 
first and the man of sin be revealed,' where our Version 
makes the Apostle say, ' a falling away/ 'that man of 
sin/ just as a little lower down it translates o avo^o^ 
' that wicked/ instead of ' the lawless one.' Similarly 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 10) it is said of 
Abraham in the original that ' He looked for the 
city which hath the foundations (efeSe^ero rrjv rou? 
0[jL\iovs e^ovaav iro\iv}! A definite image here 
rises before the sacred writer's mind of the new 
Jerusalem such as it is described in the Apocalypse, 
' The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in 
them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb' 
(xxi. 14), ' The foundations of the wall of the city were 
garnished with all manner of precious stones, etc.' (xxi. 
19 sq.) 1 . But in our Version the words are robbed of 
their meaning, and Abraham is made to look for l a 
city which hath foundations ' a senseless expression, 
for no city is without them. Again, in the Apoca- 

1 See Abp. Trench's Authorised Version, p. 86. 


lypse the definite article is more than once disregarded 
under similar circumstances. Take for instance vii. 
13, 14 'What are these which are arrayed in white 
robes (ra? o-roXa? ra? Xeu/ca?)?' with the reply, * These 
are they which came out of great tribulation (etc r^? 
0XA/reo>9 T^? /JLeydXrjs)' ; xvii. I 'That sitteth upon 
many waters' (eVl r&v vSdrwv rwv TTO\\WV, for this 
was the reading in their text). And another instance, 
not very dissimilar, occurs in the Gospels. The same 
expression is used six times in S. Matthew (viii. 12, 
xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30) and once in 
S. Luke (xiii. 28) to describe the despair and misery 
of the condemned : e/cel co-rat, 6 K\av0^o<i Kal 6 
Ppvy/jLos TWV 686vT(0v, where the rendering should be 
corrected into 'There shall be the wailing and tJte 
gnashing of teeth.' 

The last instance which I shall take connected 
with this group of facts and ideas relating to the 
end of the world is more subtle, but not on that 
account less important. I refer to the peculiar sense 
of 77 opyr), as occurring in a passage which has been 
variously explained, but which seems to admit only 
of one probable interpretation, Rom. xii. 19/477 eavrovs 
K$i,tcovvTes, dyaTrrjTol, d\\a Sore TOTTOV rfj opyfj' ye- 
ypairrai yap 'E//,ol e/cSl/crja-is, eyca avTaTroSwaa), \eyt 
Kvpios. With this compare Rom. v. 9 crwOrjao^eda 
$C avrov diro 777? opyfjs, which is rendered ' We shall 


be saved from wrath through him,' and more especially 

I Thess. ii. 16 <f>Oaa-V (efydaicev) e eV avrovs 77 opyrj 

et<? re'Xo?, where the definite article is correctly repro- 

duced in our Version, 'For the wrath is come upon 
them to the uttermost.' From these passages it 
appears that r} cpyrj, 'the wrath,' used absolutely, 
signifies the Divine retribution ; and the force of S. 
Paul's injunction in Rom. xii. 19 Bore TOTTOV rfj opyfj 
is this : * Do not avenge yourselves : do not anticipate 
the Divine retribution ; do not thrust yourselves into 
God's place, but leave room for His judgments' a 
sense which the English rendering * rather give place 
unto wrath ' does not suggest, and probably was not 
intended to represent. In the same way TO Oe\rjfjLa 
is the Divine Will (Rom. ii. 18 ryLVtocnceis TO 6e\rjfj.a l ) 

1 This word 04\rifj.a came to be so appropriated to the Divine Will, 
that it is sometimes used in this sense even without the definite article ; 
e.g. Ignat. Rom. i edvirep 6t\ir)fj.a $ TOV d^twdrjvaL fj.e (the correct 
text), Ephes. 20 lav pe /caTait&<r?j 'lyffous X/HO-TOS kv rrj irpoffevxy v/j.wv 
leal 0t\T)/j.a 17, Smyni. i viov 0eoG /card, 6^\tifj.a. KO.I dvvafjuv [GeoD] (where 
GeoO is doubtful), ii Kara 64\t)/m KaTrjt-uLBtjv. 

These passages point to the true interpretation of i Cor. xvi. 12 OVK 
TIV 6{\i]fj.a. 'iva vvv 2\0ri, t\cv<rcTai 5^ 8rav evKaip^ffrj which is (I believe) 
universally interpreted as in our English Version 'his will was not to 
come,' but which ought to be explained 'It was not God's will that he 
should come.' 

They also indicate, as I believe, the true reading in Rom. xv. 32 tva. 
kv x<W ^0w "7>te {,/jas i<i 0eXiJ/iaros, where various additions appear 
in the MSS, 0eoy in AC, Kvpiov 'Irjffov in B, 'lijirov XpiaroO in N, 
X/3tTToG 'Irjffov in DFG, but where 0\i]tJ.a appears to be used absolutely. 


and TO ovofjua the Divine name (Phil. ii. 9 TO ovopa TO 
virep Trav ovofia). In the last passage however it is 
unfair to charge our translators with an inaccurate 
rendering ' gave Him a name,' for their incorrect text 
omitted the article ; but TO ovopa is the true reading, 
and it is superfluous to remark how much is gained 

In other passages, where no doctrinal considera- 
tions are involved, a historical incident is misrepre- 
sented or the meaning of a passage is perverted by 
the neglect or the mistranslation of the article. Thus 
in two several passages S. Paul's euphemism of TO 
Trpaypa, when speaking of sins of the flesh, is effaced, 
and he is made to say something else : in I Thess. iv. 
6 ' That no man go beyond and defraud his brother 
in any matter (eV T&> TT pay part),' where the sin of dis- 
honest gain is substituted for the sin of unbridled 
sensuality by the mistranslation ; and in 2 Cor. vii. 1 1 
'Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this 
matter (eV TW TrpdjfWTi)' where, though the perversion 
is much less considerable, a slightly different turn is 
given to the Apostle's meaning by substituting ' this ' 
for 'the. 1 Again, in I Cor. v. 9, where S. Paul is made 
to say, * I wrote unto you in an Epistle ' (instead of 
* my Epistle ' or ' letter '), the mistranslation of ev rfj 
e7U(TTo\f] has an important bearing on the interpre- 
tation of his allusion. Again in 2 Cor. xii. 18 'I 


desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother (TOV 
aSeX<oy)/ the error adds to the difficulty in discerning 
the movements of S. Paul's delegates previous to the 
writing of the letter. And in such renderings as John 
iii. IO av el 6 SiSaa-^aXo? TOV *\apar]\ ; ' Art thou a 
master of Israel ?', and Rev. iii. 17 <n) el 6 raXatVajpo? 
KOI [6] eXeetyo? 'Thou art wretched and miserable,' 
though there is no actual misleading, the passages 
lose half their force by the omission. 

In another class of passages some fact of geo- 
graphy or archaeology lurks under the definite article, 
such as could proceed only from the pen of an eye- 
witness or at least of one intimately acquainted with 
the circumstances. In almost every instance of this 
kind the article is neglected in our Version, though it 
is obviously important at a time when the evidences 
of Christianity are so narrowly scanned, that these 
more minute traits of special knowledge should be 
kept in mind. Thus for instance in John xii. 13, 
'They took branches of palm-trees/ the original 
has TO, fiata TOJV fyoivUwv ' the branches of tlie palm- 
trees' the trees with which the Evangelist himself 
was so familiar, which clothed the eastern slopes of 
the Mount of Olives and gave its name to the village 
of Bethany ' the house of dates/ Thus again in the 
Acts (ix. 35) the words translated ' Lydda and 
Saron ' are AvBBa ical TOV ^apwva, ' Lydda and the 


Sharon 1 / the former being the town, the latter the 
district in the neighbourhood, and therefore having 
the definite article in this the only passage in which it 
occurs in the New Testament, as it always has in the 
Old Testament, Hash-sharon, 'the Sharon,' the woody 
plain, just as we talk of 'the Weald,' 'the Downs/ 
etc. 2 Again there is mention of '//^pinnacle (TO 
irrepvyiov) of the temple' in the record of the tempta- 
tion (Matt. iv. 5, Luke iv. 9) the same expression 
likewise being used by the Jewish Christian historian 
Hegesippus in the second century, when describing 
the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother, who is 
thrown down from ' the TTTepvyiov' 3 ; so that (what- 
ever may be the exact meaning of the word translated 
' pinnacle ') some one definite place is meant, and the 
impression conveyed to the English reader by 'a 
pinnacle' is radically wrong. Again in the history 

1 The reading fodpuva or ao-ffdpwva, which is found in some few 
second-rate authorities, is a reproduction of the Hebrew, founded perhaps 
on the note of Origen (?) rtvts d acrffdpuva (ftaaiv, oti"xl ffapuva, oirep 
Kpeirrov (see Tisch. Nov. Test. Grcec.ed. 8, II. p. 80). In direct contrast 
to this unconscious reduplication of the article stands the reading of K 
(corrected however by a later hand) which omits the TO'V, from not 
understanding the presence of the article. 

2 The illustration is Mr Grove's in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible 
s. v. Saron. 

3 In Euseb. H.E. ii. 23 ffrrjdt oftv M rb irrepvyiov Tovlepov...t<mr)o-av 
o$v ol Trpoeipr)[j.froi ypaniMreis Kal Qapurouoi TOV 


of the cleansing of the temple the reference to the 
seats of them that sold 'the doves' (ra? Trepto-repa?) 
in two Evangelists (Matt. xxi. 12, Mark xi. 15) 
indicates the pen of a narrator, who was accustomed 
to the sight of the doves which might be purchased 
within the sacred precincts by worshippers intending 
to offer the purificatory offerings enjoined by the 
Mosaic law (Luke ii. 24). In. like manner 'the bushel' 
and 'the candlestick' in the Sermon on the Mount 
(Matt. v. 15; comp. Mark iv. 21, Luke xi. 33) point 
to the simple and indispensable furniture in every 
homely Jewish household. And elsewhere casual 
allusions to * the cross-way ' (Mark xi. 4), ' the steep ' 
(Mark v. 13, 'a steep place,' A. V.), 'the synagogue' 
or 'our synagogue' (Luke vii. 5, ' He hath built us a 
synagogue,' A. V. 1 ) and the like which are not un- 
frequent all have their value, and ought not to be 

But there are two remarkable instances of the 
persistent presence of the definite article both con- 
nected with the Lake of Galilee which deserve 
special attention, but which nevertheless do not ap- 
pear at all to the English reader. 

1 In Acts xvii. i also, where the A. V. has ' Thessalonica where was 
a synagogue of the Jews,' our translators certainly read 6Vou rp ij 
cwayuyri, though the article must be omitted in the Greek, if a strong 
combination of the oldest authorities is to have weight. 


Most students of the New Testament have had 
their attention called to the fact that our Lord, before 
delivering the discourse which we call 'the Sermon 
on the Mount/ is recorded to have gone up not ' into 
a mountain ' but ' into the mountain (TO 0/005),' Matt, 
v. i 1 ; and they have been taught to observe also 
that S. Luke (vi. 17) in describing the locality where 
a discourse very similar to S. Matthew's Sermon on 
the Mount is held says, ' He came down with them 
and stood,' not (as our English Version makes him 
say) 'in the plain' (as if eV r<w TreStV) but ' on a level 
place (eVl TOTTOU ireSivov),' where the very expression 
suggests that the spot was situated in the midst of 
a hilly country. Thus, by respecting the presence of 
the article in the one Evangelist and its absence in 
the other, the two accounts are so far brought into 

1 Dean Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 361), supporting the tra- 
ditional site of the 'Mount of Beatitudes,' writes: 'None of the other 
mountains in the neighbourhood could answer equally well to this de- 
scription, inasmuch as they are merged into the uniform barrier of hills 
round the lake; whereas this stands separate "the mountain," which 
alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the one exception of 
Tabor which is too distant to answer the requirement.' If the view 
which I have taken in the text be correct, this ' uniform barrier of hills' 
would itself be rb 6pos : at all events the fact that rb 6pos is the common 
expression in the Evangelists shows that the definite article does not 
distinguish the locality of the Sermon on the Mount from those of 
several other incidents in this neighbourhood ; though possibly the in- 
dependent reasons in favour of the traditional site may be sufficient 
without this aid. 


accordance that the description of the localities at 
all events offers no impediment to our identifying 
the discourses. 

But it is important to observe in addition, that 
whenever the Evangelists speak of incidents occurring 
above the shores of the Lake of Galilee, they invari- 
ably use TO o/jo? 1 and never 0/009 or ra 0/977, either of 
which at first sight would have seemed more natural. 
The probable explanation of this fact is that TO opos 
stands for the mountain district the hills as opposed 
to the level shores more especially as the corre- 
sponding Hebrew ^HD is frequently so used, and in 
such cases is translated TO o/oo? in the LXX : e.g. ' the 
mountain of Judah,' ' the mountain of Ephraim,' Josh, 
xvii. 15, xix. 50, xx. 7, etc. 2 But, whatever may 
be the explanation, the article ought to be retained 

Only less persistent 3 is the presence of the article 

1 The only exceptions, I believe, to the insertion of the definite article, 
are in the cases of the temptation (Matt. iv. 8, [Luke iv. 5]), and of the 
transfiguration (Matt. xvii. i, Mark ix. 2), in all which passages the 
expression is es opos ty-rjKbv \\Lav~\. 

2 It is no objection to this interpretation that S. Luke twice uses the 
more classical expression ij dpeivrj in speaking of the hill-country of 
Judaea: i. 39, 65. Wherever he treads on the same ground with 
S. Matthew and S. Mark he has rb 6pos. The portion of his narrative 
in which i] dpeiv^ occurs is derived from some wholly independent 

3 The common text however inserts the article in a few passages 


in 'the ship* (TO ir\olov) in connexion with the navi- 
gation of the Sea of Galilee. Whatever may be the 
significance of this fact whether it simply bears 
testimony to the vividness with which each scene 
in succession presented itself to the first narrator or 
narrators, or whether some one well-known boat was 
intended (as the narrative of John vi. 22 sq. might 
suggest) the article ought to have been preserved 
in the English Version ; whereas in this case, as in 
the last, the translators have been guided not by 
grammar but by 'common sense/ for the most part 
translating TO cpo?, TO TrXoiov, on each occasion where 
they appear first in connexion with a fresh incident, 
by ' a mountain,' ' a ship/ and afterwards by ' the 
mountain/ ' the ship.' 

Yet on the other hand, where this phenomenon ap- 
pears in the original Greek, that is, where an object is 
indefinite when first introduced and becomes definite 
after its first mention, our translators have frequently 
disregarded this 'common sense' rule and departed 
from the Greek. Thus in the account of S. Peter's 

where it is absent from one or more of the best MSS (e.g. Matt. viii. 
23, ix. i, xiii. 2, xiv. 22, Mark iv. i, vi. 45). In Matt. xiv. 13 tv 
ir\oi(f is read by all the ancient authorities which have the words at all. 
In cases where the MSS differ it is not easy to see whether or not the 
omission of the article was a scribe's correction. Generally it may be 
said that the article with TrXotoi' is more persistent in the other Evange- 
lists than in S. Matthew. 


three denials in Mark xiv. 66, we are told that ' one 
of the maidservants (jiia TWV TrcuSicrfCtov) of the high- 
priest ' questioned him and elicited his first denial ; 
then ?; TraiSicr/crj l&ovcra CLVTGV iraXiv rjp^aro \eyeiv, 
1 The maidservant seeing him again began to say'; 
but our translators in the second passage render it 
c a maidservant/ thus making two distinct persons. 
The object was doubtless to bring the narrative into 
strict conformity with Matt. xxvi. 69, 71 (jiia TTCU&IO-KT) 
...a\\7j)', but, though there might seem to be an 
immediate gain here, this disregard of grammar is 
really a hindrance to any satisfactory solution, where 
an exact agreement in details is unimportant, and 
where strict harmony if attainable must depend on 
the tumultuous character of the scene, in which more 
than one interrogator would speak at the same time 1 . 
Our translators however were at fault not through any 
want of honesty but from their imperfect knowledge 
of grammar, for they repeatedly err in the same way 
where no purpose is served; e.g. Mark ii. 15, 16, 
'Many publicans and sinners (?roXXol Te\wvai ical 
a/jLapTO)\o[) sat also together with Jesus... and when 
the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans 
and sinners (/JLCTO, TWV rekwvwv KOI a f /za/>TG>X<wi/)...How 
is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and 
sinners (yu,era r < v reXcovvv /cal dfj,apTco\tov) ? ' I Joh. v. 6 
1 See the solution in Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels > p. 280. 


'This is he that came by water and blood (Si 
KOI aJ/iaro?), even Jesus Christ ; not by water (eV TO> 
only, but by water (eV TO> vSari) and blood (TW 
'; Rev. xi. 9, 1 1 'Shall see their dead bodies 
three days and an half (^epa? r/oefc /cat ^cr 
after three days and an half (yuera ras rpri? jj 
/cat Tjfjburv) etc.' Omissions of this class are very 

The error of inserting the article where it is 
absent is less frequent than that of omitting it where 
it is present, but not less injurious to the sense. Thus 
in I Tim. iii. 1 1 yvvai/cas ooo-avrcos aeiivas would hardly 
have been rendered ' Even so must their wives be 
grave,' if the theory of the definite article had been 
understood ; for our translators would have seen that 
the reference is to 'yvvalicas Bia/covovs, 'women-deacons' 
or 'deaconesses/ and not to the wives of the deacons 1 . 
Again, in John iv. 27 eOav/jua^ov ori fiera fyvvaiicos 
e\d\i, the English Version ' They marvelled that He 
talked with the woman' implies that the disciples 

1 The office of deaconess is mentioned only in one other passage in 
the New Testament (Rom. xvi. i) ; and there also it is obliterated in the 
English Version by the substitution of the vague expression ' which is a 
servant ' for the more definite oftaav diaKovov. If the testimony borne in 
these two passages to a ministry of women in the Apostolic times had 
not been thus blotted out of our English Bibles, attention would proba- 
bly have been directed to the subject at an earlier date, and our English 
Church would not have remained so long maimed in- one of her hands. 


knew her shameful history a highly improbable sup- 
position, since she is obviously a stranger whose 
character our Lord reads through His divine intui- 
tion alone ; whereas the true rendering, * He talked 
with a woman,' which indeed alone explains the em- 
phatic position of <y V vaiKQ<>, points to their surprise that 
He should break through the conventional restraints 
imposed by rabbinical authority and be seen speaking 
to one of the other sex in public 1 . Again in Luke 
vi. 1 6 09 [/cal] eyevero TrpoBoTrjs ought not to be trans- 
lated ' Which also was the traitor/ because the sub- 
sequent history of Judas is not assumed to be known 
to S. Luke's readers, but ' Who also became a traitor/ 
Again it is important for geographical reasons that 
in Acts viii. 5 Philip should not be represented as 
going down 'to the city of Samaria' (et9 iroXiv rrjs 
Sa/zape/a?), if the reading which our translators had 
before them be correct 2 , because the rendering may 
lead to a wrong identification of the place. And lastly, 
Kara eoprrjv, which means simply 'at festival-time/ 
should not be translated 'at the feast' (Luke xxiii. 17), 
still less 'at that feast' (Matt, xxvii. 15, Mark xv. 6), 
because these renderings seem to limit the custom to 
the feast of the Passover a limitation which is not 

1 A rabbinical precept was, * Let no one talk with a woman in the 
street, no not with his own wife': see Lightfoot's Works, u. p. 543. 

2 ds Tty irb\iv however ought almost certainly to be read. 


implied in the original expression and certainly is not 
required by the parallel passage in S. John (xviil 39). 
Happily in another passage (John v. I //.era ravra TJV 
eop-rrj TWV 'lovSatW), which is important in its bearing 
on the chronology of our Lord's life, our translators 
have respected the omission of the article before 
eoprtj ; but that their accuracy in this instance was 
purely accidental appears from the fact that a chapter 
later (vi. 4) TO Traaya $ eoprr) T&V 'lovSaitov is rendered 
' the Passover, a feast of the Jews.' 

But if, after the examples already given, any 
doubt could still remain that the theory of the 
definite article was wholly unknown to our trans- 
lators, the following passages, in which almost every 
conceivable rule is broken, must be regarded as con- 
clusive : Matt. iii. 4 avros Se 6 '\wdvvr]<s el^ev TO evovpa 
' And the same John had his raiment ' (where the true 
rendering ' But John himself involves an antithesis 
of the prophetic announcement and the actual appear- 
ance of the Baptist); John iv. 37 ev TOVTO* 6 \6yos 
ecrrlv 6 d\r)0ivo<; 'Herein is that saying true'; ib. 
v. 44 rrjv Bo^av rrjv Trapd rov JAOVOV eoO * The honour 
that cometh from God only* ; Acts xi. 17 TTJV 
ftwpeav eScofcev avTols 6 eo? oj? Kal r^iiv 
cTrl rov Kvpiov ' God gave them the like gift as He did 
unto us who believed on the Lord'; I Cor. viii. 10, 12 
77 (rvvelorja-is avrov do-6evov<$ ovTo<s...'rvirTov'res avrwv 
L R. 9 


rrjv crvveiSrja-w daOevovcrav 'The conscience of him 
which is weak... wound their weak conscience'; 2 Cor. 
viii. 19 7rpc9 TYJV avrov TOV TLvpiov 6%av 'To the glory of 
the same Lord ' ; I Tim .vi. 2 TUG-TOI elaw /cal dyaTrrjrol 
ol r?79 evepyeaias avTiKa^^avo^voi ' They are faithful 
and beloved, partakers of the benefit ' ; ib. vi. 5 VO/JLL- 
ZOVTWV TropKTjJLov elvat, TTJV ev<re/3eiav l Supposing that 
gain is godliness'; 2 Tim. ii. 19 6 ^kvroi crrepeo? 
#e//,eXto9 TOV 0eoO ea-rrjKev ' Nevertheless the founda- 
tion of God standeth sure'; Heb. vi. 8 /c(f>epovo-a 
Se aicavOas Kal T/H/SoXou? d&o/cifjios ' But that whicJi 
beareth thorns and briers is rejected ' ; ib. vi. 16 iracr^ 
airrols dvnXoylas Trepa? et? fiefiaiciMTiv 6 o/3/co? 'An 
oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife ' ; 
ib. ix. I TO re ayiov Koa/jLi/cov'And a worldly sanctuary'; 
ib. x. I rat? aiJrafc Qvalais a? irpovfyepovcnv l With 
those sacrifices which they offered ' ; Rev. xix. 9 ovrot, 
ol \6yoi, aXyOivol elcri TOV 6eoO 'These are the true 
sayings of God.' 

There is however one passage, in which this fault 
is committed and on which it may be worth while to 
dwell at greater length, because it does not appear 
to have been properly understood. In John v. 35 the 
words eicelvo<; r\v o Xi^z/o? 6 Kaioiievos Kal (fraivwvj in 
which our Lord describes the Baptist, are translated 
in our Version ' He was a burning and a shining 
light.' Thus rendered, the expression appears as in- 


tended simply to glorify John. But this is not the 
sense which the context requires, and it is only at- 
tained by a flagrant disregard of the articles. Com- 
mentators have correctly pointed out that John is 
here called 6 \v^vo<; ' the lamp ' ; he was not TO <f> o>? 
'the light' (i. 8) 1 ; for Christ Himself and Christ only 
is ' the light' (i. 9, iii. 19, ix. 5, etc.). Thus the ren- 
dering of 6 \vxyos is vitally wrong, as probably few 
would deny. But it has not been perceived how 
much the contrast between the Baptist and the Sa- 
viour is strengthened by a proper appreciation of the 
remaining words 6 KOLLO^VO^ teal (fratvcov. The word 
is 'to burn, to kindle,' as in Matt. v. 15 ovSe 
\v%vov ' Neither do men light a candle ' : 
so too Luke xii. 35 ol \v^yoi KaLofievoi, Rev. iv. 5, 
viii. 10. Thus it implies that the light is not in- 
herent, but borrowed ; and the force of the expression 
will be, ' He is the lamp that is kindled and so 
shineth.' Christ Himself is the centre and source of 
light ; the Baptist has no light of his own, but draws 
all his illumination from this greater One. He is 
only as the light of the candle, for whose rays indeed 
men are grateful, but which is pale, flickering, trans- 
itory, compared with the glories of the Eternal flame 
from which itself is kindled. 

1 Here again (i. 8) much is lost in the English Version by rendering 
O$K T]V tKelvo? rb <p<2s 'He was not that light.' 



3. After the tenses and the definite article, the 
prepositions deserve to be considered : for here also 
there is much room for improvement. 

Of these &a holds the first place in importance : 
yet in dealing with this preposition we are met with 
a difficulty. The misunderstandings which arise in 
the mind of an English reader are due in most pas- 
sages rather to the archaisms than to the errors of 
our translators : and archaisms are very intractable. 
Where in common language we now say 'by' and 
'through' (i.e. 'by means of) respectively, our trans- 
lators, following the diction of their age, generally 
use 'of and 'by' respectively 'of denoting the 
agent (VTTO), and ' by ' the instrument or means (JBick). 
This however is not universally the case, but VTTO is 
sometimes translated 'by' (e.g. Luke ii. 18) and Sea 
sometimes 'through' (e.g. John i. 7). Such excep- 
tions seem to show that the language was already in 
a state of transition : and this supposition is confirmed 
by observing that in the first passage Tyndale and the 
earlier Versions render T&V \a\rj6evrwv avrois i>7rb TWV 
TTo^ltevtov ' those things which were told them of the 
shepherds' a rendering still retained even in the 
Bishops' and Geneva Bibles, and first altered ap- 
parently by King James's revisers. 

From these archaisms great ambiguity arises. 
When we hear ' It was said of him,' we understand 


at once l about or concerning him,' but this is not the 
meaning which this preposition bears in our New 
Testament. And again, when we read ' It was sent 
by me,' we understand ' I sent it,' but neither again 
is this the meaning intended. In the modern lan- 
guage 'by' represents the sender (UTTO), whereas in the 
old it denotes the bearer (&a) of the letter or parcel. 
We do not venture to use l by' meaning the inter- 
mediate agency or instrument, except in cases where 
the form or the matter of the sentence shows dis- 
tinctly that the primary agent is not intended, so 
that no confusion is possible, as * I sent it by him/ ' I 
was informed by telegraph.' Otherwise misunder- 
standing is inevitable. Thus in Acts xii. 9 ' He wist 
not that it was true which was done by the angel ' (TO 
yivoiievov Sia rov dyyeXov), or in Acts ii. 43 'Many 
wonders and signs were done by the Apostles' (Sta T&V 
aTTocrroXo)!/ cyiveTo), no English reader would suspect 
that the angel and the Apostles respectively are re- 
presented as the doers only in the sense in which a 
chisel may be said to carve a piece of wood, as instru- 
ments in the hands of an initiative power. In the 
same way Acts ii. 23 ' Ye have taken, and by wicked 
hands have crucified and slain' is, I fancy, wholly 
misunderstood : nor indeed would it be. easy without 
a knowledge of the Greek, Sia xeipwv avo^wv^, to dis- 
1 I have taken xfipuv as the reading which our translators had before 


cover that by the * wicked hands/ or rather * lawless 
hands/ is meant the instrumentality of the avofioi, the 
heathen Romans, whom the Jews addressed by S. 
Peter had used as their tools to compass our Lord's 
death. And again, such renderings as Gal. iii. 19 
'ordained by angels* (Siarayek Si dyye\cov), and 
Eph. iii. 10 'might be known by the Church (yvcopi- 
aQfi Bid T?;? eKKXycrias, i.e. might be made known 
through the Church) the manifold wisdom of God/ 
are quite misleading. It was not however for the 
sake of such isolated examples as these that I 
entered upon this discussion. There are two very 
important classes of passages, in which the distinc- 
tion between VTTO (djro) and Bid is very important, 
and in which therefore this ambiguity is much to be 

The first of these has reference to Inspiration. 
Wherever the sacred writers have occasion to quote 
or to refer to the Old Testament, they invariably 
apply the preposition Bid, as denoting instrumentality, 
to the lawgiver or the prophet or the psalmist, while 
they reserve VTTO, as signifying the primary motive 
agency, to God Himself. This rule is, I believe, 
universal. Some few exceptions, it is true, occur in 
the received text; but all these vanish, when the 

them. But the correct text is unquestionably Sid. x l P^ o-vb/j-wv 'by the 
hand of lawless men,' which brings out the sense still more clearly. 


readings of the older authorities are adopted 1 : and 
this very fact is significant, because it points to a con- 
trast between the persistent idea of the sacred writers 
themselves and the comparative indifference of their 
later transcribers. Sometimes Sia occurs alone, e.g. 
Matt. xxi. 4 TO /3?70ei> Sia TOV TrpocfrrjTov, xxiv. 15 TO 
pyOev &ia &avt,r)\, etc. ; sometimes in close connexion 
with VTTO, e.g. Matt. i. 22 TO prjOev VTTO K.vpiov St,a 
rov Trpo^Tov (comp. ii. 15). It is used moreover not 
only when the word is mentioned as spoken, but also 
when it is mentioned as written ; e.g. Matt. ii. 5 
jap ryeypaTTTat, Si a TOV trpocfrrjTOV, Luke xviii. 31 
ra yeypafji/jieva Sia TWV TrpotyrjTwv. Yet this signi- 
ficant fact is wholly lost to the English reader. 

The other class of passages has a still more im- 
portant theological bearing, having reference to the 
Person of Christ. The preposition, it is well known, 
which is especially applied to the Office of the Divine 

1 In Matt. ii. 17, iii. 3, the readings of the received text are faro 
'lepefdov, virb 'Rffaiov respectively, but all the best critical editions read 
Sid. in both places, following the preponderance of ancient authority. 
In Matt, xxvii. 35, Mark xiii. 14, the clauses containing virb in this 
connexion are interpolations, and are struck out in the best editions. 

In all these four passages our A.V. has 'by,' though the transla- 
tors had virb in their text and (following their ordinary practice) should 
have rendered it 'of.' Tyndale, who led the way, probably having 
no distinct grammatical conception of the difference of virb and 5, 
followed his theological instinct herein and thus extracted the right 
sense out of the false reading. 


Word, is Bid', e.g. John i. 3, 10 irdvra Si avrov eyevero 
...6 Acoo>io9 Si avrov eyevero, I Cor. viii. 6 el? Kvpios 

IrjO-OVS X/9i<JTC9 $1 OV TO. TTaVTO, KCU T/yLtefr Si aVTOV, 

Col. i. 1 6 rd Trdvra Si avrov Kal et9 avrov e/cno-Tai, 
Heb. i. 2 &' o^ /cat eTroirjo-ev TOV$ ateo^a?, ii. IO St' ov rd 
irdvTa /cal 8t' ov rd irdvra. In all such passages the 
ambiguous 'by' is a serious obstacle to the under- 
standing of the English reader. In the Nicene Creed 
itself the expression ' By whom (Si ov) all things were 
made/ even when it is seen that the relative refers not 
to the Father but to the Son (and the accidental 
circumstance that the Father is mentioned just before 
misleads many persons on this point), yet fails to 
suggest any idea different from the other expression 
in the Creed ' Maker of Heaven and Earth,' which had 
before been applied to the Father. The perplexity 
and confusion are still further increased by the in- 
distinct rendering, * God of God, Light of Light/ etc. 
for eo9 ex OeoO, <&>9 etc <&>ro9, K.T.\. words which in 
themselves represent the doctrine of God the Word 
as taught by S. John, but whose meaning is veiled 
by the English preposition of. Thus the Nicene 
doctrine is obscured in the Nicene formula itself as 
represented to the English ear ; and the prejudice 
against it, which is necessarily excited by misunder- 
standing, ensues. The same misconception must 
attend the corresponding passages in the New Tes- 


tament; e.g. John i. 3, lO'All things were made by 
Him,' ' The world was made by Him.' In this case 
it is much easier to point out the defect than to sup- 
ply the remedy : but surely the English Version in 
this context is capricious in rendering Si avrov in the 
two passages already quoted ' by Him,' and yet in an 
intermediate verse (7) translating Traz/re? mo-rev o-cocriv 
$i avrov ' all men through him might believe/ and 
then again returning to by in ver. 17 6 vofjuos Bia 
Mft)i;<7ft)9 &60rf, T) ^cipi^ Kal T) aXrfBeia Sia 'I^o-ou 
X/3t<7ToO eyevero, 'The law was given by Moses, but 
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' If prescription 
is too powerful to admit the rendering 'through' for 
Bi,a throughout the passage, some degree of consis- 
tency at least might be attained, so that mvrevcraMTiv 
&i avrov and Sia Mcovcrew ISoOi) should be translated 
the same way. 

But, though in the renderings of Sid with the 
genitive we are confronted by archaisms rather than 
by errors, and it might be difficult and perhaps not 
advisable in many cases to meddle with them, the 
same apology and the same impediment do not 
apply to this preposition as used with the accusative. 
Here our translators are absolutely wrong, and a 
correction is imperative. Though they do not ever 
(so far as I have noticed) translate Sia with a genitive 
as though it had an accusative, they are frequently 


guilty of the converse error, and render it with an 
accusative as though it had a genitive. Thus Matt, 
xv. 3, 6 ' Why do ye transgress the commandment of 
God?... ye have made the commandment of God of 
none effect by your tradition (Ibia T^V TrapdSoa-iv 
vfiwv! i.e. ' for the sake of your tradition/ or, as it is 
expressed in the parallel passage Mark vii. 9, f iva Trjv 
TapdSoo-w vfLwv TrjprjarjTe [crTrjarjTe]) ; John xv. 3 
' Now ye are clean through the word (Sid rov \6yovy 
Rom. ii. 24 ' The name of God is blasphemed among 
the Gentiles through you (Si vfjids)' ; 2 Cor. iv. 15 
1 That the abundant grace might through the thanks- 
giving of many redound to the glory of God (a/a 77 
TrXeo^aoraera Bid rwv ir\ibvc>)v Trjv ev^apicrrLav 
vo-r) et? Trjv Sofaz/ rov oi))/ where it is per- 
haps best to govern TT)V zvyapiaTiav by irepicraevcrr) 
taken as a transitive, but where the English Version 
at all events has three positive errors, (i) translating 
77 %apt? 7r\ovd<Tacra as if 77 TrXeovacraaa %/H9, (2) 
rendering roov TrXeiovcov as if TroXXwv, (3) giving the 
wrong sense to Sia with the accusative ; Heb. vi. 7 
' Bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is 
dressed (81 oO? ryecopyelrat).' Yet in Rom. viii. 1 1, 
* He shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you,' our translators were 
apparently alive to the difference of signification in 
the various readings Six TOV evoiKovvTO$...7rvi>fJLaTo<i 


and Btd TO ei'OiKovv...iTvevfjLa, for they add in the 
margin ' Or, because of his Spirit.' 

In translating the other prepositions also there is 
occasional laxity. Thus eVl rv vefyeK&v is rendered 
' in the clouds ' (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64), though the 
imagery is marred thereby, and though the mention 
of ' Him that sat on the cloud (eVl TTJS z/e^eX?;?)' in the 
Apocalypse (xiv. 15, 16) ought to have ensured the 
correct translation. And similarly in Matt. iv. 6, 
Luke iv. 10, the English rendering 'In their hands 
they shall bear thee up' presents a different picture 
from the eVt xeipwv of the original 1 . Again the proper 
force of 619 is often sacrificed, where the loss is not 
inappreciable. Thus in 2 Cor. xi. 3, ovrco <t>6ap7J rd 
vorjfjLara V[JL>V djro r/J? aTrXor^ro? r^? els TOV Xpio~TOv 
is rendered 'So your minds should be corrupted from 

1 In Mark xii. 26 OVK &vyvi)Te tv rfj /3i'/3Ay Mwi/Wws eirl TOV ^Sarou, 
TTO?S direv avry 6 0e6s ' Have ye not read in the book of Moses how in 
the bush God spake unto him?' the wrong idea conveyed in the English 
Version arises more from neglect of the order than from mistranslation 
of the preposition. If the order of the original had been trusted, our 
translators would have seen that eirl TOV /Sarou must mean 'in the pas- 
sage relating to the Bush,' 'in the passage called the Bush' (comp. ev 
'HXip Rom. xi. 2, 'in the history of Elijah,' where again our A. V. has 
the wrong rendering * of Elias'). Strangely enough Wycliffe alone of 
our English translators gives the right meaning, 'Han ye not rad in 
the book of Moises on the bousche, how God seide to him?' In the 
parallel passage Luke xx. 37 the rendering of our Authorised Version 
' at the bush ' is at all events an improvement on the preceding transla- 
tions ' besides the bush.' 


the simplicity that is in Christ/ where the true idea is 
'sincerity or fidelity towards Christ/ in accordance 
with the image in the context, ' That I may present 
you as a chaste virgin to Christ/ Even more serious 
is the injury done to the sense in I Cor. viii. 6, a\X' 
TJ/jbiv efc 0609 6 Trarrjp ef ov ra iravra fcal r^els et? 
avrov, KOL 6t9 'Kvptos 'I?;<joC9 X/3to~T09 SL ov rd irdvra 
Kal tj/jieis Si avrov, where the studiously careful dis- 
tribution of the prepositions in the original is entirely 
deranged by rendering 6/9 avrov ' in him ' instead of 
1 unto him/ though here a marginal alternative 'for 
him' is given. 

Again a common form of error is the mistrans- 
lation of fiaTTTL&iv et9, as in I Cor. i. 1 3 ' Or were ye 
baptized in the name of Paul (et9 TO ovofjLa Tlav\ov) ?' 
So again Matt, xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16. In Acts 
xix. 3, 5, after being twice given correctly ' Unto 
what then were ye baptized ? And they said Unto 
John's baptism/ nevertheless when it occurs a third 
time it is wrongly translated, 'When they heard this, 
they were baptized in the name (et9 TO OVO/JLO) of the 
Lord Jesus.' On the other hand in Rom. vi. 3, I Cor. 
x. 2, xii. 13, Gal. iii. 27, the preposition is duly re- 

Again, though the influence of the Hebrew and 
Aramaic has affected the use of eV, so that it cannot 
be measured by a strictly classical standard, still the 


license which our Version occasionally takes is quite 
unjustifiable. In such passages as Rom. xiv. 14 ol$a 
teal TreTreio-fiai ev "Kvpltp 'Irjcrov ' I know and am per- 
suaded by the Lord Jesus/ I Cor. xii. 13 KOI yap ev 
evl Tlvevfiart rffieis Travres et? e*> aw^a e/3a7TTio-0i]fjiv 
' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body/ 
the Hebraic or instrumental sense of ev is indefensible. 
Lastly, even prepositions with such well-defined 
meanings as CUTTO and virip are not always respected ; 
as for example in 2 Thess. ii. I, 2 'Now we beseech 
you, brethren, by (vTrep) the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 
that ye be not soon shaken in mind (OTTO TOV 7/009)'; 
while elsewhere vrapa is similarly illtreated, I Pet. 
ii. 4 ' Disallowed indeed of men (I/TTO av0pa>7ra)v), but 
chosen of God (irapa ec3 

Under these three heads the most numerous 
grammatical errors of our Version fall. But other in- 
accuracies of diverse kinds confront us from time to 
time, and some of these are of real importance. Any- 
one who attempts to frame a system of the chronology 
of our Lord's life by a comparison of the Gospel-nar- 
ratives with one another and with contemporary Jewish 
history, will know how perplexing is the statement in 
our English Version of Luke iii. 23 that Jesus after 
His baptism l began to be about thirty years of age.' 


But the original need not and (in fact) cannot mean 
this ; for r^v ap^o^evo^ coo-el ertov rpidfcovra must be 
translated 'was about thirty years old, when he began' 
(i.e. at the commencement of His public life, His minis- 
try) ; where caael is sufficiently elastic to allow a year 
or two or even more either under or over the thirty 
years : and in fact the notices of Herod's life in Jose- 
phus compared with S. Matthew's narrative seem to 
require that our Lord should have been somewhat 
more than thirty years old at the time. Again such a 
translation as Phil. iv. 3 ow\afjfldvov avrals amz>e?... 
(Tvvr]6\'r](Tav fjLoi, 'Help those women which laboured 
with me/ is impossible ; and, going hand in hand 
with an error in the preceding verse by which a man 
' Euodias ' is substituted for a woman ' Euodia 1 / calls 
for correction. Again in 2 Pet. iii. 12 the rendering 
of airevSovras rrjv Trapovaiav rry? rov 0eoO ^yttepa? 
' hasting unto the coming of the day of God ' cannot 
stand, and the alternative suggested in the margin 
' hasting the coming ' should be placed in the text ; 
for the words obviously imply that the zeal and 
steadfastness of the faithful will be instrumental in 

1 The Versions of Tyndale and Coverdale, the Great Bible, and 
the Bishops' Bible, treat both as men's names, Euodias and Syntiches 
(Syntyches or Sintiches) ; the Geneva Testament (1557) gives both cor- 
rectly; but the Geneva Bible takes up the intermediate position, and is 
followed by our A. V. All alike are wrong in the translation of 
atfrcus al'rtj'es. 


speeding the final crisis. Again the substitution of 
an interrogative for a relative in Matt. xxvi. 50 eralpe, 
e</>' o irdpei, ' Friend, wherefore art thou come ?' is not 
warranted by New Testament usage, though here 
our translators are supported by many modern com- 
mentators ; and the expression must be treated as 
an aposiopesis, ' Friend, do that for which thou art 
come 1 .' Again our translators have on more than 
one occasion indulged in the grammatical fiction 
of Hypallage, rendering 717)09 ol/co$ofj,r]v r^ 
' for the use of edifying ' in Eph. iv. 29, and d 
TOV T/J? dpx*! 1 * ToO XpiGTov \6yov (Heb. vi. i) 'leaving 
the principles of the 'doctrine of Christ' In both of 
these passages however there is a marginal note, 
though in the first the alternative offered 'to edify 
profitably ' slurs over the difficulty. Such grammatical 
deformities as these should be swept away. Neither 
again should we tolerate such a rendering as I Cor. 
xii. 28 azmA^/n/ret?, /cv/Bepvija-eis, 'helps in govern- 
ments 2 ,' where the original contemplates two distinct 
functions, of which ai/rA^/i^ret? would apply mainly 
to the diaconate and Kv^epvrja-ei^ to the presbytery, 

1 Thus it may be compared with John xiii. 27 6 rotets, 

2 This is the rendering in the edition of 1611 ; but the preposition 
was struck out in the Cambridge edition of 1637 (and possibly earlier), 
and the text is commonly printed 'helps, governments,' but without 
any authority. 


but where our translators have had recourse to 
the grammatical fiction of Hendiadys. A somewhat 
similar instance to the last, where two detached words 
are combined in defiance of the sense, is I Cor. xvi. 
22 ' Let him be Anathema Maranatha,' where doubt- 
less the words should be separated ; rJTco dvdOe^a' 
M.apav a6d y 'Let him be anathema. Maran Atha' 
(i.e. ' The Lord cometh,' or ' is come '). 

Isolated examples of grammatical inaccuracy 
such as these might be multiplied ; but I will close 
with one illustration, drawn from the treatment of 
the word fyalvew. The distinction between fyalvew 
' to shine ' and fyaivecrOat, ' to appear ' is based on an 
elementary principle of grammar. It is therefore 
surprising that our translators should not have ob- 
served the difference. And yet, though the context 
in most cases leads them right, the errors of which 
they are guilty in particular passages show that they 
proceeded on no fixed principle. Thus we have in 
Acts xxvii. 2O wre avrpwv eirifyaivovTw ITTL Tr\eiovas 
rjnepas 'Nor stars in many days appeared} and con- 
versely in Matt. xxiv. 27 /cal fyalverai eW 8vcrfj.wv 
1 And shineth even unto the west,' and in Phil. ii. 1 5 
eV ot9 <f)alve<T0 <9 (frcoo-Tfjpes ev tc6<Tfj,<p ' Among whom 
ye shine as lights in the world' (where the marginal 
alternative of an imperative ' shine ye ' is given, but 
no misgiving seems to have been suggested to our 


translators by the voice of c^alveade 1 ). When they have 
gone so far wrong in a simple matter of inflexion, it 
is not surprising that syntactic considerations should 
have been overlooked, and that they should not have 
recognised the proper distinction between ^>aivo^ai 
elvai ' I appear to be,' and fyaivoiiai wv ' I am seen to 
be.' Of this error they are guilty in Matt. vi. 16, 
1 8, O7r&)<? (pavwcrw rot? dvOpooTTOLS vijo-revovTes, OTTO)? 
/LIT) (fravfjs TO?? avQptoTrois vrjarevwv, * That they may 
appear unto men to fast,' ' That thou appear not unto 
men to fast ' ; though the sense is correctly given by 
Tyndale (with whom most of the older Versions 
agree substantially), ' That they might be seen of 
men how they fast/ ' That it appear not unto men 
how that thou fastest.' 

The directly opposite fault to that which has just 
been discussed also deserves notice, and may perhaps 
be considered here. If hitherto attention has been 
directed to the ignorance or disregard of Greek 

1 Again in Rev. xviii. 23 0w$ \byy v v A"7 <t> av fl '" ff <- Z 
word was accentuated as a passive (^avf;) in the text used by our trans- 
lators, as was probably the case, they have rendered it incorrectly 'The 
light of a candle shall shine no more in thee'; but here Lachmann 
and others read the active (jxiv-g. In Rev. viii. 12 they read Qaivr) and 
rightly translated it 'shone' : but modern critical editors substitute <t>ou>y 
or Qavrj. In Acts xxi. 3 'When we had discovered Cyprus,' the correct 
text is probably dva<pav^vres 5t TT^V Ktiirpov, but 'discovered' seems 
to be intended as a translation oi" the other reading<paj>a.vTts. 
L. R. 10 


grammar in our translators, it may be well to point 
out instances in which they have attempted to im- 
prove the original, where the connexion is loose or 
the structure ungrammatical. This happens most 
frequently where past and present tenses are inter- 
mingled in the original ; e.g. Matt. iii. 15, 16 6 ' 
TT/>O<? avT6v...r6re dfyirjGLV avr6v...Kal 
6 'fycroO? due/By, where for the sake of sym- 
metry d<j>r}(riv is translated suffered \ or Mark xiv. 
53, 54 Kai dTrrjyayov rov 'Irjcrovv...^!, ffwep^ov- 
rat, avro) 7rdvre<;...ical 6 TLerpos djro naicpoQev rj/co- 
\ov0r)<rv avro), where for the same reason o-vvep- 
yovrai is given were assembled. In all such cases 
there is no good reason for departing from the 
original. This is not a question of the idiom in 
different languages, but of the style of a particular 
author; and peculiarities of style should, as far as 
possible, be reproduced. Moreover our translators 
themselves have not ventured always to reduce the 
tenses to uniformity, so that the licence they have 
taken results in capricious alterations here and there, 
which serve no worthy purpose. 

These however are nothing more than loose- 
nesses of style. But even grammatical inaccuracies 
ought to be preserved, as far as possible; for it will 
generally be found that in such cases the grammar 
is sacrificed to some higher end either greater force 


of expression or greater clearness of meaning. More 
than one instance of this occurs in the Apocalypse. 
In the letters to the Seven Churches the messages 
close with words of encouragement to the victor in 
the struggle. In the last four of these the words 
6 vi/coiJv are flung out at the beginning of the sen- 
tence without any regard to the subsequent con- 
struction, which in three out of the four is changed 
so that the nominative stands alone without any 
government: ii. 26 KOI 6 viKwv...^ora> avru> eov<7iav, 
iii. 12 6 VLK&V, Troitjao) avrov arv\ov, iii. 21 6 VIKWV, 
Swaco avrw KadLcai. In the first instance only have 
our translators had the courage to retain the broken 
grammar of the original, 'And /&? that overcometh... 
to him will I give/ acting thus boldly perhaps because 
the intervening words partly obscure the irregularity. 
In the other two cases they have set the grammar 
straight; 'Him that overcometh will I make a 
pillar/ 'To him that overcometh will I grant to sit.' 
Yet there was no sufficient reason for making a 
difference, and in all alike the English should have 
commenced as the Greek commences, ' He that over- 

Would it be thought overbold if I were to counsel 
the same scrupulous adherence to the form of the 
original in a still more important passage ? In Rev. 
i. 4 %pfc9 Vfuv /cal eiprjvrj OTTO [roO] 6 wv Kal o rjv KOI 6 

10 2 


, the defiance of grammar is even more 
startling. It may be true that a cultivated Athenian 
could hardly have brought himself to write thus ; but 
certainly the fisherman of Galilee did not so express 
himself from mere ignorance of Greek, for such ig- 
norance as this supposition would assume must have 
prevented his writing the Apocalypse at all. In this 
instance at least, where the Apostle is dealing with the 
Name of names, the motive which would lead him to 
isolate the words from their context is plain enough. 
And should not this remarkable feature be preserved 
in our English Bible ? If in Exod. iii. 14 the words 
run ' I AM hath sent me unto you/ may we not 
also be allowed to read here, 'from HE THAT IS AND 
violation of grammar would not be greater in the 
English than it is in the Greek. 

5. . , , - 

If the errors of grammar in our English Version 
are very numerous, those of lexicography are not so 
frequent. Yet even here several indisputable errors 
need correction ; not a few doubtful interpretations 
may be improved ; and many vague renderings will 
gain by being made sharper and clearer. 

Instances of impossible renderings occur from time 


to time, though the whole number of these is not 
great. By impossible renderings I mean those cases 
in which our translators have assigned to a word 
a signification which it never bears elsewhere, and 
which therefore we must at once discard without 
considering whether it docs or does not harmonize 
with the context. 

Such for instance is the treatment of the par- 
ticles eri and rjSrj in occasional passages, where their 
meaning is interchanged in our Version ; as in Mark 
xiii. 28 orav avrrjs rjBrj 6 icXdSos aVaXo? yevrjrai, K.T.\. 
1 When her branch is yet tender/ for ' As soon as its 
branch is tender' (the sign of approaching summer), 
and 2 Cor. i. 23 ovtceri rj\6ov et? KopwOov, * I came not 
as yet unto Corinth,' for 'I came no more unto Corinth' 
(I paid no fresh visit): or the rendering of cnra% in 
Heb. xii. 26 en aira^ eyw <mo>, 'Yet once more I 
shake' : or of /cal jap in Matt. xv. 27 val Kvpie, KOI 
yap rd /cvvdpia eadiet,, ' Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat.' 
And, when we turn from particles to nouns and 
verbs, examples will not fail us. Such are the ren- 
derings of dvetyios in Col. iv. 10 ' Marcus, sisters son 
to Barnabas' (6 az/e\^o? Bapvufia) for 'cousin': of <j>6i- 
voTrcopivos in Jude 12 'Trees whose fruit withereth, 
without fruit (BevSpa (frOivoTrcopivd a/capTra), twice 
dead, plucked up by the roots,' for ' autumn trees 
without fruit, etc.,' where there appears to be a refer- 


ence to the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 
6), and where at all events the mention of the season 
when fruit might be expected is significant 1 , while 
under any circumstances the awkward contradiction 
of terms in our English Version should have sug- 
gested some misgiving : of OpiajM/Beveiv in 2 Cor. ii. 14 
' God which always canseth tis to triumph (TO> irav- 
Tore BpianftevovTi rjfias) in Christ,' for ' leadeth us in 
triumph/ where the image of the believer made cap- 
tive and chained to the car of Christ is most expres- 
sive, while the paradox of the Apostle's thanksgiving 
over his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once 
forcible and characteristic: and of Trapecns in Rom. iii. 
25 'To declare his righteousness for the remission of 

1 Strange to say, the earliest Versions all rendered Qdivoirwpiva 
correctly. Tyndale's instinct led him to give what I cannot but think 
the right turn to the expression; 'Trees with out frute at gadringe 
[gathering] time,' i.e. at the season when fruit was looked for; I cannot 
agree with Abp. Trench (p. 125), who maintains that 'Tyndale was 
feeling after, though he has not grasped, the right translation,' and 
himself explains ipffivoirupivd, aKapira, as 'mutually completing one 
another,' without leaves, without fruit. Tyndale was followed by Cover- 
dale and the Great Bible. Similarly Wycliffe has 'hervest trees without 
fruyt,' and the Rheims Version 'Trees of Autumne, unfruiteful.' The 
earliest offender is the Geneva Testament which gives 'corrupt trees 
and without frute, ' a rendering adopted also in the Geneva Bible. The 
Bishops' Bible strangely combines both renderings, 'trees withered 
[<t>0lveu>] at fruite geathering [6ir6pa] and without fruite'; wh'ch is 
explained in the margin ' Trees withered in Autumne when the fruite 
harvest is, and so the Greke woord importeth,' while at the same time 
other alternative interpretations are given. 


sins that are past (Sia r^v irdpeaw rwv Trpojeyovurcov 
dfjLapTrjpaTcov),' for ' by reason of the passing over of the 
former sins,' where the double error of mistranslating 
Bta and of giving irdpecr^ the sense of afyecns has 
entirely shattered the meaning, and where the context 
implies that this signal manifestation of God's right- 
eousness was vouchsafed, not because the sins were 
forgiven, but because they were only overlooked for 
the time without being forgiven 1 . Other examples 
again are <rv\ayo)yeiv in Col. ii. 8 firj rt9 vpas co-rat, 6 
a-vXaycoyoov ' Lest any man spoil you,' for * make spoil 
of you,' 'carry you off as plunder' : Trpo/Stfjd^ew in 
Matt. xiv. 8 irpopipaadelaa VTTO rfjs /jLrjrpcx; aur/y?, 
'Being before instructed of her mother,' for 'being 
put forward, urged, by her mother/ for there is no 
instance of the temporal sense of the preposition in 
this compound: e-rrcpcorrjina in I Pet. iii. 21 'The 
answer of a good conscience toward God,' for 'the 
question? where the word may mean a petition but 
certainly cannot mean an answer: ^LKaiwfiara in 
Rom. ii. 26 ' If the uncircumcision keep the right- 
eousness of the law/ for ' the ordinances of the law' : 
Traypovv, Trewpoxm, in the Epistles (Rom. xi. 7, 25, 
2 Cor. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18), where they are always 

1 An alternative sense of irdpeffiv is given in the margin, 'or passing 
over'; but this is not sufficient to elicit the right meaning without also 
correcting the rendering of dta. 


rendered ' blind, blindness,' though correctly trans- 
lated in the Gospels (Mark iii. 5, vi. 52, John xii. 40) 
' harden, hardness V 

In some cases the wrong rendering of our trans- 
lators arose from a false derivation, which was gener- 
ally accepted in their age. Thus d/cepaios is rendered 
'harmless' (from /cepas, Kpata)) Matt. x. 16, Phil. 
ii. 15, instead of 'simple, pure, sincere' (from icepdv- 
VV/JLI, 'to mix, adulterate'), though in Rom. xvi. 19 
it is correctly given' 2 . So also epLOeia is taken to 
mean 'strife, contention' (Rom. ii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, 
Gal. v. 20, Phil. i. 17, ii. 3, James iii. 14, 16) from its 
supposed connexion with epis ; whereas its true de- 
rivation is from epiOos 'a hired partisan,' so that it 
denotes 'party-spirit.' And again in Jude 12 OVTOU 
elcnv v rat? d^anra^ vp&v a-TTtAaSe? ' These are spots 
in your feasts of charity,' 0-TrtXaSe? 'rocks' is trans- 
lated as if cr7rt\ot ' spots' 3 ; our translators having 

1 This illustrates the incongruity which results from assigning different 
parts of the New Testament to different persons. In the instance before 
us however a compromise is effected by marginal alternatives. In Mark 
iii. 5 the margin has l or blindness'; in Rom. xi. 7, 25, Eph. iv. 18, 
'or hardened,' 'or hardness.' In the other passages there is no margin 
in the edition of 1611. 

2 In Matt. x. 1 6 however the margin has 'or simple,' and in Phil. ii. 
15 'or sincere.' 

* At least this is the view taken by modern commentators almost 
universally; but it does not seem to me certain that <T7rt\d5ej here 
cannot mean 'spots'; for (i) All the early Versions connect it with 


doubtless been influenced by the parallel passage 
2 Pet. ii. 13 <nrl\oi KOI JAGO/AOI evrpvfywvres ev rat? 
avrarat? avrwv, ' Spots are they and blemishes, sport- 
ing themselves with their own deceivings 1 .' The last 
example of this class of errors, which I shall take, 
is the surname of Simon the Apostle, ' the Canaanite.' 
The correct form of the word is Kami/cuo?, not Kai/a- 
tfrijs, in both passages where it occurs (Matt. x. 4, 
Mark iii. 18); but the latter stood in the text which our 
translators had before them. Yet this false reading 
certainly should not have misled them ; for 

this root, translating it either as a substantive 'stains,' or as an adjective 
' polluted. ' This is the case with the Old and the Revised Latin, with 
both the Egyptian Versions, and with the Philoxenian Syriac, nor have 
I noticed a single one which renders it 'rocks.' (2) As 0-TrtXoj (or 
<77rtXos), which generally signifies a 'spot* or 'stain,' sometimes has the 
sense 'a rock,' so conversely it is quite possible that ffirtXas 'a rock' 
should occasionally exchange its ordinary meaning for that of <riri\os. 
(3) In one of the Orphic poems, Lith. 614 KardariKTov airiXddeaffi irvp- 
afj<ru> Xeu/ccus re fj.eXcui'Ofj.frais xXoepous re, it has this sense; and, though 
this poem was apparently not written till the fourth century, still it 
seems highly improbable that the writer should have derived this sense 
of the word solely from S. Jude. If he did so, it only shows how 
fixed this interpretation had become before his time. (4) The extreme 
violence of the metaphor 'rocks in your feasts of charity' is certainly not 
favourable to the interpretation which it is proposed to substitute. And 
(5) though this argument must not be pressed, yet the occurrence 
of cnriXoi Kai yuw^toi in the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii. 13) must be allowed 
some weight in determining the sense of <rirt,\d8es here. 

1 I have quoted the passage as it stands in the received text iv rats 
(wroTcus, but iv rats dyzirais is read by Lachmann and Tregelles, as in 
Jude 12. 


the word for the Canaanite in the LXX and in Matt. 
xv. 22, is even farther from Kavavlrrjs than from Kava- 
valos. The parallel passages in S. Luke (Luke vi. 15? 
Acts i. 13) point to the fact that this surname is the 
Aramaic word Kanan, j&Op, corresponding to the 
Greek JfyXwnfc 'the Zealot 1 '; and this being so, it is 
somewhat strange that our translators should have 
gone astray on the word, seeing that the Greek form 
for *W13 'Canaanite' is invariably spelt correctly with 
a X corresponding to Caph, and not with a K corre- 
sponding to Koph. The earlier Versions however all 
suppose the word to involve the name of a place, 
though they do not all render it alike. Tyndale, 
Coverdale, and the Great Bible have ' Simon of Cane' 
or 'Cana'; the Geneva Testament (1557) has 'of 

1 See Evvald Gesch. des V. Isr. V. p. 322, Derembourg UHistoire de 
la Palestine p. 238. This is a common termination of names of sects 

when Grecized ; e.g. 'A<r<rt5cuoj, 3 > a/>i<7cuos, 2a85ovKa:os, 'Ecrcrcuos 
(Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23). This fact seems to have escaped 
Meyer when he points to the termination as showing that Kavavcuos 
denotes the name of a place and thus exhibits a false tradition, while 
the true account is preserved in the fT/Xwrrjs of S. Luke. Indeed the 
formation of Kavavalos from Kanan is exactly analogous to that of 
4>a/oto-a?os from Pharish or 'Acr<n5cuoj from Hhasid. Meyer confesses 
himself at a loss to name any place to which he can refer JLavavatos. 

In the Peshito, Kavavcuos is translated rtlxULo, but Xavaceuos 
r<*ilSlV where the difference of the initial letter and the insertion 
of the 2k. in the latter word show that in this Version the forms were 
not confounded. 



Canan' in the one place, and 'of Cane* in the other; 
the Geneva Bible 'Cananite' in both. The Bishops' 
Bible, so far as I have observed, first prints the word 
with a double a (Matt. x. 4), thus fixing the reference 
to Canaan 1 . 

There are other passages where, though the word 
itself will admit the meaning assigned to it in our 
Version, and so this meaning cannot be called im- 
possible, yet the context more or less decidedly 

1 To this list of false derivations some would add Kardw^a in Rom. 
xi. 8, where irveO/wt /caravi^ews is rendered 'the spirit of slumber J 
though with the marginal alternative remorse; but I doubt whether 
Abp. Trench is right in saying (p. 118) that 'our translators must have 
derived KaTou>vis from vvvTaffiv, as many others have done.' The fact 
is that Karavfoaetv, Karavv^, are frequently used in the LXX to 
translate words denoting heavy sleep, silence, amazement, and the like, 
e.g. Levit. x. 3, Ps. iv. 5, xxx. 12, xxxv. 15, Is. vi. 5, Dan. x. 9; and 
in the very passage to which S. Paul here refers, Is. xxix. 10, Karairvfa 
represents the Hebrew HDlin 'deep sleep.' The idea of numbness is 
the connecting link between pricking, wounding, and stttpor, heavy sleep. 
Fritzsche (Rom. II. p. 558 sq.) has an important excursus on the w,ord, 
but is not always happy in his explanation of the LXX renderings. The 
earlier English Versions generally adopted the more literal meaning of 
Aorcu'vts. Thus Wycliffe and the Rheims Version have 'compunction* 
after the Vulgate; Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible 'unquiet- 
ness'; the Bishops' Bible 'remorse,' with the marginal note 'That is, 
pricking and unquietnesse of conscience.' The Geneva Testament (1557) 
is as usual the innovator, rendering the word ' heavy sleep.' For this 
the Geneva Bible substitutes 'slumber, 'but with a margin 'or pricking.* 

The reasons why I do not class ejrtotfcnos among these words, in 
which a mistaken derivation has led to a wrong translation, will be given 
in the Appendix. 


favours another sense. Examples belonging to this 
class are James iii. 5 l&oi) o\i<yov [/. rj\l/cov] irvp ^\i/crjv 
v\7jv dvaTTTei, ' Behold how great a matter a little fire 
kindleth,' where the literal meaning of v\rj is cer- 
tainly to be preferred to the philosophical, and where 
it is most strange that our translators having the 
correct word 'wood' present to their minds should 
have banished it to the margin : Matt. xxvi. 15 ecrrrj- 
aav avra) Tpid/tovra dpyupia, 'They covenanted with him 
for thirty pieces of silver,' where the passage in Zech- 
ariah (xi. 1 2 ' They weighed for my price thirty pieces 
of silver/ LXX ecrr^craz/) to which the Evangelist 
alludes ought to have led to the proper rendering of 
the same word here, 'weighed unto him' : Heb. ii. 16 
ov ydp SIJTTOV dyyeXcov lirCKa^av^Tai aXXa crTrep/xaro? 
'A/3paa/j, e7ri\afjL/3dv6Tat,, * He took not on him the 
nature of angels, but lie took on him the seed of 
Abraham,' where the context suggests the more 
natural meaning of iirCKa^av^aQai ' To take hold of 
for the purpose of supporting or assisting' (comp. 
ver. 1 8 /3o77#>/<7cu); Mark iv. 29 orav irapa^ol 6 KapTros, 
'When the fruit is brought forth} where the right 
meaning ripe is given in the margin : Acts ii. 3 St,a- 
fjLpi^6fjLvai y\<t)(7a'ai, oocrel Trvpos, 'Cloven tongues like 
as of fire,' where the imagery and the symbolism, not 
less than the tense, suggest a different rendering of 
&{,ajj,epi6fjLevai,, parting asunder : 2 Cor. iv. 4 eh TO prj 


avydcrat, [avrois] TOP <f>(0Tio-/j,ov rov vayye\iov, * Lest 
the light of the Gospel... should shine unto them,' 
where indeed the fault was not with the translators 
but with the reading, since having ai/rot? in their text 
they had no choice but to translate the words so; 
but when avrois is struck out (as it should be), a 
different sense ought perhaps to be given to aLjdcrai, 
1 That they might not be/told the light,' etc. Another 
and a very important example of this class of errors 
is the rendering of Trat? in Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30, 
where it is translated 'son' or 'child' in place of 
'servant,' thus obliterating the connexion with the 
prophetic announcement of the ' servant of the Lord ' 
in Isaiah 1 . It is not here, as elsewhere, the Sonship, 
but the ministry, on which the Apostles dwell. In 
Matt. xii. 18, where the prophecy itself (Isai. xlii. i) is 
quoted and applied to our Lord, the words are rightly 
translated, . * Behold I send my servant' ; and indeed 
when confronted with the original no one would think 
of rendering it otherwise. Other instances again are 
the rendering ofaLpeiv in John i. 29 6 aipwv rrjv d/napriav 
rov KCHT/JLOV, ' Which taketh away the sin of the world,' 
where the marginal reading beareth should probably 
be substituted in the text ; and similarly of dvevey- 
lv in Heb. ix. 28, I Pet. ii. 24 dvevey/cew d 

1 See especially Trench, Authorized Version, p. 69. 


* To bear the 'sins,' where the true idea is not that of 
sustaining a burden, but of raising upon the cross. 
So again TreTfXrjpofyoprjfjievwv in Luke i. I probably 
means 'fulfilled 'rather than 'most surely believed,' as 
in the latter sense the passive is used only of the per- 
sons convinced and not of the things credited. On 
the other hand, it is not certain whether paara&w 
means 'to carry off, to steal' in John xii. 6 ra /3aX- 
\6fjieva eftao-Ta^ev, or whether the English Version 
'bare what was put therein' should stand. 

In another class of words the English rendering, 
while it cannot be called incorrect, is vague or in- 
adequate, so that the exact idea of the original is not 
represented or the sharpness of outline is blurred. 
This defect will be most obvious in metaphors. For 
instance in Rom. vi. 13, where oir\a d&t/cias is ren- 
dered ' instruments of unrighteousness,' instead of 
arms or weapons (which however is given as an alter- 
native in the margin), we fail to recognise the image 
of military service rendered to Sin, as a great king 
(ver. 12 fjurj fiaai\veTci)) who enforces obedience (vira- 
Koveiv) and pays his soldiery in the coin of death 
(ver. 23 rdo-^roovia rrjs a pa p-r Las 6dvaros\ Again the 
rendering of Col. ii. 5 i/*a>v rrjv TCL%IV /cal TO crrepewfjia 
T??? 6t? XPKTTOV TTfVreft)? i'fjiwv, 'Your order and the 
stedfastness of your faith in Christ,' fails to suggest 
the idea of the close phalanx arrayed for battle, which 


is involved in the original * : and similarly in 2 Cor. 
x. 5 irav v^jrcof^a 7raip6fj,evov Kara TT?? 7^0)0-60)? roD 
eoO our translators in rendering the words 'Every 
high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge 
of God,' appear not to have seen that this expression 
continues the metaphor of the campaign (o-rparevo- 
fjieOa) and the fortresses (o^vpwfjLara) in the context, 
and that the reference is to the siege works thrown 
up for the purpose of attacking the faith. Again 
the metaphor of KaravapKav is very inadequately 
given in 2 Cor. xi. 9 ' I was chargeable to no man/ 
and in xii. 13, 14 'I was not, I will not be, burden- 
some to you ' : and the * thorn in the flesh ' in the 
English Version of 2 Cor. xii. 7 has suggested inter- 
pretations of S. Paul's malady, which the original 
<TKo\o"fy ' a stake* does not countenance, and is almost 
as wide of the mark as the Latin stimulus carnis 
which also has led to much misunderstanding. These 
are a few instances out of many, which might be 
given, where a metaphor has suffered from inade- 
quate rendering. 

Other examples also, where no metaphor is in- 
volved, might be multiplied. Thus in Matt. ix. 16, 
Mark ii. 21, it is difficult to see why our translators 
should have abandoned the natural expression 'un- 

1 i Mace. ix. 14 elSev 'lotfSciy 8n Ba/cx'ST?? Kal r6 <rre/>^w/ia T^S 
iv ro?$ eto?s. 


dressed cloth,' which occurs in the Geneva Testa- 
ment, as a rendering of pd/cos ayvafov, for 'new 
cloth/ contenting themselves with putting 'raw or 
unwrought' in the margin. In Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark 
xiv. 32, we read in the English Version of ' a place 
called Gethsemane' ; the Greek however is not %c/x>9 
but xwptov, not a place but ' a parcel of ground' (as 
it is rendered in John iv. 5), an enclosure, a field or 
garden, and thus corresponds more closely to /ayTro? 
by which S. John describes the same locality though 
without mentioning the name (xviii. i). In Acts 
i. 3 oTTTavofievos avTois should not have been trans- 
lated 'being seen of them/ for the emphatic word 
oirrdveadai, which does not occur elsewhere in the 
New Testament, expresses much more than this, and 
' showing himself unto them' would be a better though 
still an inadequate rendering. In Rom. ii. 22 6 /3Se- 
Auoxroftez/o? ra e!'S&>Xa tepo<rtA,e?9 the inconsistency of 
the man who plunders a Jteathen temple while pro- 
fessing to loathe an idol, is lost by the rendering 
' dost thou commit sacrilege* ; and indeed it may be 
suspected that our translators misapprehended the 
force of iepoo-vXels, more especially as in most of the 
earlier Versions it was translated * robbest God of 
his honour.' In Acts xiv. 13 'Then the priest of 
Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and 
garlands unto the gates/ the English reader inevit-: 


ably thinks of the city-gates ; but as the Greek has 
trvXwvas, not TruXa?, the portal or gateway or vestibule 
of the temple is clearly meant. This was seen by 
Tyndale, who quaintly translates it 'the church-porch.' 
In Acts xvii. 29, S. Paul addressing an audience of 
heathen philosophers condescends to adopt the lan- 
guage familiar to them, and speaks of TO Oelov an 
expression which does not occur elsewhere in the 
New Testament ; but in the English rendering ' God- 
head ' this vague philosophical term becomes con- 
crete and precise, as though it had been Oeorrj^ in 
the original. In the Acts xiii. 50 and elsewhere ol 
aefiofievoi, at cre/3oyu,ez/at, by which S. Luke always 
means ' proselytes, worshippers of the one God/ are 
translated 'devout'; and hence the strange statement 
(which must perplex many an English reader) that 
'the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable 
women... and raised persecution against Paul and 
Barnabas.' In 2 Cor. xiii. n Karapr^eo-de is ren- 
dered 'be perfect^ an d in the Qth verse rrjv V/JLWV 
KarapTiGw ' your perfection! but the context shows 
that in these parting injunctions S. Paul reiterates 
the leading thought of the Epistles, exhorting the 
Corinthians to compose their differences: and this is 
the meaning of I Cor. i. 10 rjre Se /caTrjpTio-pevot, 
ev T$ aura) vot t where it is better rendered ' that ye be 
perfectly joined together, etc/ Lastly, in I Tim. iii. 3, 
L. R. II 


Tit. i. 7, pr) irdpoivov is translated 'not given to wine'; 
but in the first passage this idea is already expressed 
by vr}cf)d\Lov, and natural as the more obvious ren- 
dering might seem, the usage of irdpoivos elsewhere 
shows that it denotes 'a brawler,' 'a quarrelsome 
person' (which is the alternative meaning offered in 
the margin). 

I will close this section with an illustration, of 
which it is difficult to say whether we should more 
properly class it under the head of lexicography or 
of grammar. a/3/3ara is the Aramaic form of the 
Hebrew word for 'a sabbath' written out in Greek 
letters. Appearing in this form, it is naturally de- 
clined as a plural era/SySara, o-afiffdrfov, but never- 
theless retains its proper meaning as a singular. 
How widely this form was known, and how strictly 
it preserved its force as a singular, will appear from 
Horace's ' Hodie tricesima sabbata.' In our Version 
of the New Testament, whenever the meaning is un- 
mistakable it is translated as a singular (e.g. Matt. 
xii. I, II, Mark i. 21, ii. 23, iii. 2, Acts xiii. 14); 
but where the sense is doubtful a plural rendering 
is mostly preferred (e.g. Matt. xii. 5, 10, 12, Mark 
iii. 4). In all these cases however it is much better 
treated as a singular, in accordance with the sense 
which it beats in the same contexts ; and in such a 
passage as Col. ii. 16 eV pepei eoprfjs fj 



, the plural ' sabbath-days ' is obviously out 
of place, as co-ordinated with two singular nouns. 
The only passage in the New Testament where 
o-dfi/Bara is distinctly plural is Acts xvii. 2 eVl 

rpta, where it is defined by the numeral. 

Over and above the ordinary questions of trans- 
lation, there is a particular class of words which 
presents special difficulties and needs special atten- 
tion. Proper names, official titles, technical terms, 
which, as belonging to one language and one nation, 
have no direct equivalents in another, must obviously 
be treated in an exceptional way. Are they to 
be reproduced as they stand in the original, or is 
the translator to give the terms most nearly cor- 
responding to them in the language of his version? 
Is he to adopt the policy of despair, or the policy 
of compromise ? Or may he invoke either principle 
according to the exigencies of the case ? and, if so, 
what laws can be laid down to regulate his practice 
and to prevent caprice ? 

Of this class of words, proper names are the least 
difficult to deal with ; and yet even these occasion- 
ally offer perplexing problems. 

The general principles, on which our translators 

II 2 


proceeded in this matter, are twofold. First ; where 
no familiar English form of a name existed, they 
retained the form substantially as they found it. In 
other words they reproduced the Hebrew or Chaldee 
form in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the 
New. Secondly; where a proper name had been 
adopted into the English language and become natu- 
ralised there with some modification of form, or where 
the person or place was commonly known in English 
by a name derived from some other language, they 
adopted this English equivalent, however originated. 
Instances of English equivalents arrived at by the 
one process are, Eve, Herod, James, John, Jude, 
Luke, Magdalene, Mary, Peter, Pilate, Saul, Stephen, 
Zebedee, Italy, Rome, etc.: of the other, Assyria, 
Ethiopia, Euphrates, Idumea, Mesopotamia, Persia, 
Syria, etc., Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Darius, etc., for Asshur, 
Cush, Phrath, Edom, Aram-Naharaim, Pharas, Aram, 
etc., Arta-chshashta, Coresh, Daryavesh, etc.. in the 
Old Testament 1 , the more familiar classical forms 
being substituted for the less familiar Hebrew; and 
of Diana, Jupiter, Mercurius, for Artemis, Zeus, 
Hermes, in the New the more familiar Latin being 

1 In this however there is great inconsistency. Thus we have Cush 
in Is. xi. n, but Ethiopia in xviii. i, etc. ; Edom in Is. xi. 14, Ixiii. i, 
but Idumea in xxxiv. 5,6; Asshur in Hos. xiv. 3, but Assyria elsewhere 
in this same prophet; Javan in Is. Ixvi. 19, but Greece or Grecia in 
the other prophets ; and so with other words. 


substituted for the less familiar Greek : while in some 
few cases, e.g. Egypt, Tyre 1 , etc., both modifying 
influences have been at work ; the Hebrew has been 
replaced by the Greek, and this again has been 
Anglicised in form. In the instructions given to our 
translators it was so ordered : ' The names of the 
prophets and the holy writers with the other names 
of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, 
according as they were vulgarly used.' 

With these principles no fault can be found ; 
but the result of their application is not always 
satisfactory. Our translators are not uniformly con- 
sistent with themselves ; and moreover time has very 
considerably altered the conditions of the problem 
as it presents itself now. 

(i) The first of these principles, though it com- 
mends itself to our own age, was not allowed to pass 
unquestioned, when first asserted. At the era of 
the Reformation, the persons mentioned in the Old 
Testament were commonly known (so far as they were 
known at all) through the Septuagint and Vulgate 
forms. Thus Ochosias stood for Ahaziah, Achab for 
Ahab, Sobna for Shebnah, Elias for Elijah, Eliseus 
for Elisha, Roboam for Rehoboam, Josaphat for 
Jehoshaphat, Abdias for Obadiah, and the like. In 

1 Yet 'Tyre' and 'Tyrus' are employed indifferently, and without 
any rule, in the Old Testament. 


Coverdale's Bible these forms are generally retained ; 
but in the later English Versions there is a tendency 
to substitute the Hebrew forms, or forms more nearly 
approaching to them. 

In the two Versions, which held the ground when 
our Authorised Version was set on foot the Bishops' 
Bible and the Geneva Bible this tendency had 
reached the utmost limit which the English language 
seemed to allow. In Miinster's Latin Bible indeed 
an attempt had been made to reproduce the Hebrew 
forms with exactness ; and accordingly the names 
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel there appear as 
Jesahiahu, Irmeiahu, and lechezchel. This extreme 
point however was never reached by any of our 
English translators; but still in the Geneva Bible 
the names of the patriarchs are written Izhak and 
laakob, and in the Bishops' Bible we meet with such 
forms as Amariahu, Zachariahu. 

This tendency was not left unassailed. Gregory 
Martin in his attack on the 'English Bibles used 
and authorised since the time of the schism/ published 
at Rheims in 1582, writes as follows : 

Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must 
savour vanity or novelty or both. As when you affect new 
strange words which the people are not acquainted withal, but 
it is rather Hebrew to them than English : fia\a o-e/twus oi/ojza- 
Covrts, as Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great counte- 
nance and majesty. 'Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, 


King of Babel/ 2 Par. xxxvi. 6, for ' Nabuchodonosor king of 
Babylon'; 'Saneherib' for ' Sennacherib'; * Michaiah's pro- 
phecy' for 'Michaea's' ; 'Jehoshaphat's prayer' for 'Josaphat's': 
'Uzza slain' for 'Oza'; 'when Zerubbabel went about to build 
the temple' for 'Zorobabel'; 'remember what the Lord did to 
Miriam' for 'Marie,' Deut. xxxiv ; and in your first 1 translation 
'Elisa' for 'Elisaeus'; 'Pekahia' and 'Pekah' for 'Phaceia' and 
'Phacee'; 'Uziahu' for 'Ozias'; 'Thiglath-peleser' for 'Teglath- 
phalasar'; 'Ahaziahu' for 'Ochozias'; 'Peka son of Remaliahu' 
for 'Phacee son of Romelia.' And why say you not as well 
'Shelomoh' for 'Salomon,' and 'Coresh' for 'Cyrus,' and so 
alter every word from the known sound and pronunciation 
thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew, 
rather than English? Were it goodly hearing (think you) to 
say for 'Jesus' 'Jeshuah' ; and for 'Marie' his mother ' Miriam'; 
and for 'Messias' 'Messiach'; and 'John' 'Jachannan'; and 
such-like monstrous novelties? which you might as well do, 
and the people would understand you as well, as when your 
preachers say, ' Nabucadnezer King of Babel.' 

To these charges Fulke gives this brief and sen- 
sible reply : 

Seeing the most of the proper names of the Old Testament 
were unknown to the people before the Scriptures were read in 
English, it was best to utter them according to the truth of their 
pronunciation in Hebrew, rather than after the common corrup- 
tion which they had received in the Greek and Latin tongues. 
But as for those names which were known to the people out of 
the New Testament, as Jesus, John, Mary, etc., it had been folly 

1 i.e. the Great Bible, which was the first Bible in use after ' the 
schism'; the edition to which Martin refers is that of 1562. The two 
Bibles, to which Martin's strictures mostly apply, are the Genevan 
and the Bishops', as being most commonly used when he wrote. See 
Fulke's Defence, etc. p. 67 sq. 


to have taught men to sound them otherwise than after the 
Greek declination, in which we find them 1 . 

The attack however was so far successful, that the 
revisers who produced our Authorised Translation 
seem to have adopted in each case from the current 
Versions those forms which least offended the English 
eye or ear, even though farther removed from the 
Hebrew. Thus in the examples already given, they 
write Isaac, Jacob, in preference to Izhak, laakob 
of the Geneva Bible, and Amariah, Zachariah in 
preference to Amariahu, Zachariahu of the Bishops'. 

With the general treatment of the Old Testament 
names I have no desire to find fault: perhaps the 
forms in our English Bible approach as nearly to the 
Hebrew as is desirable. But, when we compare the 
New Testament with the Old, some important ques- 
tions arise. 

In favour of retaining the old Septuagint and 
Vulgate forms in preference to introducing the 
Hebrew, there was this strong argument ; that the 
same person thus appeared under the same name in 
the New Testament as in the Old. The English 
reader did not need to be informed that Eliseus was 
the same as Elisha, Ozias as Uzziah, Salathiel as 
Shealtiel, etc. Now he has not this advantage. Even 

1 Fulke's Defence of the English Translations of the Bible, p. 588 sq. 
(Parker Society's edition). 


supposing that the identity of persons is recognised, 
much unconscious misconception still remains in 
particular cases. It is very difficult for instance for 
an English reader, who has not read or thought on 
the subject, to realise the fact that the Elias, whom 
the Jews expected to appear in Messiah's days, was 
not some weird mythical being, or some merely sym- 
bolical person, but the veritable Elijah who lived on 
earth, in flesh and blood, in the days of Ahab. * Let 
us just seek to realize to ourselves/ says Archbishop 
Trench, ' the difference in the amount of awakened 
attention among a country congregation, which Matt, 
xvii. 10 would create, if it were read thus: "And his 
disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes 
that Elijah must first come ?" as compared with what 
it now is likely to create.' And this argument 
applies, though in a less degree, to the scene of the 
transfiguration. It is most important, as the same 
writer has observed, to 'keep vivid and strong the 
relations between the Old and New Testament in 
the minds of the great body of English hearers and 
readers of Scripture 1 .' 

I imagine that few would deny the advantage of 
substituting the more familiar Old Testament names 
in such cases for the less familiar Septuagint forms 
preserved in the New ; but many more may question 

1 Trench Authorized Version, p. 41. 


whether such a substitution is legitimate, and I ven- 
ture therefore to add a few words in defence of this 
reform which I should wish to see introduced. 

If at this point we were to invoke the second 
principle (which has been mentioned above and will 
be considered presently), that whenever a familiar 
English form of a name occurs, this shall be substi- 
tuted for the original, e.g. John for loannes, James 
for lacobos, Mary for Mariam, this principle alone 
would justify the change which I am advocating. For, 
to our generation at least, the familiar English names 
of the Old Testament personages are Elijah, Elisha, 
Isaiah, etc. ; and therefore on this ground alone the 
Greek forms Elias, Eliseus, Esaias, should give place 
to them. In the i6th and I7th centuries it might be 
a question between Esay, Esaie, Esaias, Isaiah; be- 
tween Abdy, Abdias, Obadiah; between Jeremy, Jere- 
mias, Jeremiah ; between Osee, Oseas, Osea, Hosea 
(or Hoshea); between Sophony, Sophonia, Sophonias, 
Zephaniah ; between Aggeus, Haggeus, Haggai ; and 
the like: but now long familiarity has decided irre- 
vocably in favour of the last forms in each case, and 
there is every reason why the less familiar modes of 
representing the names should give place to the more 
familiar. But, quite independently of this considera- 
tion of familiarity, we should merely be exercising 
the legitimate functions of translators, if in most 


cases we were to return to the Old Testament forms. 
For (with very few exceptions) the Greek forms repre- 
sent the original names as nearly as the vocables 
and the genius of the Greek language permit ; and 
in translating it is surely allowable to neglect the 
purely Greek features in the words. This applies 
especially to terminations, such as Jeremias, Jonas, 
Manasses, for Jeremiah, Jonah, Manasseh ; and in fact 
the name Elias itself is nothing more than 'Elijah' 
similarly formed, for the Hebrew word could not 
have been written otherwise in Greek. It applies also 
to the change of certain consonants. Thus a Greek 
had no choice but to represent the sh sound by a sim- 
ple s. Like the men of Ephraim, the Greeks could 
not frame to pronounce the word Shibboleth right ; 
and it is curious to observe to what straits the Alex- 
andrian translator of the narrative in the book of 
Judges (xii. 5, 6) is driven in his attempt to render 
the incident into this language 1 . Remembering this, 
we shall at once replace Cis (Acts xiii. 21) by Kish 2 , 
and Aser (Luke ii. 36, Rev. vii. 6) by Asher ; while the 
English reader will at length discover that the un- 
familiar Saron, connected with the history of ^Eneas 

1 He can only say flirbv 817 ffrdxy* [A has etirare Sr/ fffod-rjfj.a] Kal 06 
KaTi>0vve [A Kal KaTrjvdvvav] rou XaX^at oCrws. 

2 It is not easy to see why our translators should have written Cis, 
Core, rather than Kis, Kore. 


(Acts ix. 35), is the well-known Sharon of Old Testa- 
ment history. Combining this principle of change 
with the foregoing, we should restore Elisha in place 
of Eliseus. For the Hebrew gutturals again the Greeks 
had no equivalent, and were obliged either to omit 
them or to substitute the nearest sound which their 
language afforded. On this'principle they frequently 
represented the final PI by an e 1 ; and hence the forms 
Con?, No*?, which therefore we should without scruple 
replace by the more familiar Korah, Noah. In the 
middle of a word it was often represented by a %, 
while our Old Testament translators in this and other 
positions give an h ; and thus there is no reason why 
Ra^ab, Ac/iaz, should stand in the New Testament 
for Ra/zab, A/zaz in the Old. Again, the fact that 
the aspirate, though pronounced, was never written in 
Greek should be taken into account ; and any diverg- 
ence from the Hebrew form which can be traced 
to this cause might be neglected ; thus Agar, Eze- 
kias would be replaced by Hagar, Hezekiah, and 
Josaphat, Roboam, by Jehoshaphat, Rehoboam 2 . By 

1 The genealogies at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles in the 
LXX offer very many instances of this change. Sometimes this final e 
represents an V or a 11. 

2 For'Pcta (Heb. xi. 31, James ii. 25) our translators have boldly 
written 'Rahab.'. While speaking of aspirates, it may be mentioned 
that in the edition of 161 1 the normal spelling in the New Testament is 
'Hierusalem'; the only exceptions which I have noticed being i Cor. 


adopting this principle of neglecting mere peculiari- 
ties and imperfections of the Greek in the repre- 
sentation of the Hebrew names, and thus endea- 
vouring to reproduce the original form which has 
undergone the modification, we should in almost 
every important instance bring the names in the Old 
and New Testament into conformity with each other. 
A very few comparatively trifling exceptions would 
still remain, where the Greek form cannot be so ex- 
plained. These might be allowed to stand ; or if the 
identity of the person signified was beyond question 
(e.g. Aram and Ram), the Old Testament form might 
be replaced in the text, and the Greek form given 
in the margin. 

(2) The second of the two principles, which were 
enunciated above as guiding our English translators, 
also requires some consideration. 

Under this head the inconsistency of our Author- 
ised Version will need correction, for it is incapable 
of defence. If the prophet was to be called Osee 1 

xvi. 3, Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. i, iv. 25, 26, Heb. xii. 22, and the headings of 
some chapters (e.g. Acts xxi, Rev. xxi), where 'Jerusalem' appears. 
On the other hand in the Old Testament it is 'Jerusalem,' though 
'Hierusalem' occurs in the heading of 2 Sam. xiv. 

1 It may be questioned whether this word should be pronounced as a 
dissyllable, the double e being regarded as an English termination as in 
Zebedee, Pharisee, etc., or as a trisyllable, the word being considered 
as a reproduction of the Greek 'fl<r?^. 

On the other hand there can, I think, be no doubt that the modern 


in the New Testament (Rom. ix. 25), there is no 
reason why he should have remained Hosea in the 
Old. If the country appears as Greece in Zechariah 
(ix. 13) and in the Acts (xx. 2), why should it be 
named Grecia in the book of Daniel (viii. 21, x. 20, 
xi. 2) ? If the inhabitants of this country are Greeks 
in the New Testament, why should they be Grecians 
in the Old (Joel iii. 6) 1 ? If Mark is substituted for 
Marcus in some passages (Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39, 

fashion of pronouncing the final e of Magdalene, as though it represented 
the 77 of the original, is erroneous. The word is far older than the 
translations made from the Greek in the i6th and i7th centuries, and 
came from the Latin. Though in the A. V. (1611) the spelling is 
always ' Magdalene,' yet in the earlier Versions it is indifferently 
Magdalen and Magdalene. Wycliffe writes it ' Mawdeleyn' a pronun- 
ciation which has survived in the names of our Colleges and in the 
adjective 'maudlin.' There is no more reason for sounding the last 
letter in Magdalene, than in Urbane (Rom. xvi. 9). 

This last word is printed ' Urbane,' in all the early editions of the 
A.V. which I have consulted (1611, 1612, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1637). 
On the other hand the earlier Versions without exception, so far as I 
have noticed, have ' Urban ' or ' Urbanus.' In the Authorised Version 
(1611) these final ^'s were common; thus we find Hebrewe, Jewe, 
Marke, Romane, Samaritane, etc. 

1 In the New Testament 'Grecian' is reserved for'EXXijvur-nJj, while 
'Greek' represents "EXX^. This distinction is good, as far as it goes ; 
but in order to convey any idea to an English reader 'EXX^taT^s should 
be translated by ' Grecian Jew ' or by some similar phrase. 

As"EXX^ is translated 'Gentile' without hesitation elsewhere (e.g. 
I Cor. x. 32, xii. 13), it is strange that this rendering is not adopted 
for 'EXXrjj'fc, where it would have avoided an apparent contradiction, 
Mark vii. 26 'A Greek, a Syrophenician by nation.' 


2 Tim. iv. 1 1), why should Marcus have been allowed to 
stand in others (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, I Pet. v. 13)? 
Nay, so far does this inconsistency go, that Jeremy 
and Jeremias occur in the same Gospel (Matt. ii. 17, 
xvi. 14) : Luke and Lucas in two companion Epistles 
sent at the same time, from the same place, arid to 
the same destination (Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24); and 
Timothy and Timotheus in the same chapter of the 
same Epistle (2 Cor. i. i, 19). In all these cases the 
form which is now the most familiar should be 
consistently adopted. This rule would substitute 
Jeremiah for Jeremy, but on the other hand it would 
prefer Mark to Marcus. At the same time both 
Cretes (Acts ii. ii) and Cretians (Tit. i. 12) would 
disappear, and Cretans take their place. 

This principle, if consistently carried out, would 
rule one very important example. Familiar usage, 
which requires that the name JESUS should be re- 
tained when it designates the most sacred Person of 
all, no less imperatively demands that Joshua shall 
be substituted when the great captain of Israel and 
conqueror of Palestine is intended. For the same 
reason we speak of the Patriarch as Jacob and the 
Apostle as James ; of the sister of Moses as Miriam, 
and the mother of the Lord as Mary. It so happens 
that both the passages in which the name Jesus de- 
signates the Israelite captain (Acts vii. 45, Heb. iv. 8) 


are more or less 'obscure either from difficulties in 
the context or from defects of translation ; and the 
endless confusion, which is created in the minds of 
the uneducated by the retention of this form, is a 
matter of everyday experience. 

This last example leads me to speak of another 
point. There can be little doubt that, when the same 
person is intended, the same form should be adopted 
throughout. But what should be done, when the 
name which has a familiar English form applies to 
unfamiliar persons ? Thus the English John corre- 
sponds to the Greek 'Icoavr)? or 'Ia>dvvTjs, and to the 
Hebrew Jehohanan or Johanan (pnirV or pPlV). 
Are we then in every case to substitute John, where 
either the Greek or the Hebrew form occurs ? No 
one would think of displacing John the Baptist, or 
John the son of Zebedee, or John surnamed Mark. 
But what are we to do with the Old Testament per- 
sonages bearing this name ? What with those who 
are mentioned in S. Luke's genealogy, where appa- 
rently the name occurs more than once in forms more 
or less disguised (iii. 24 (?), 27, 30)? What with 
John i. 42, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where our English Version 
gives ' Simon son of Jona/ but where the true reading 
in the original is doubtless 'ladvov ? I do not know 
that any universal rule can be laid down ; but pro- 
bably the practice, adopted by our translators, of 


reproducing the name when it occurs in the Hebrew 
form, and translating it when in the Greek, would be 
generally approved. Yet perhaps an exception might 
be made of John i. 42, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where it is 
advisable either in the text or in the margin to show 
the connexion of form with the JSapiayva of Matt 
xvi. 17*. Again, in the English Version there is the 

1 This form 'Iowa may represent two distinct Hebrew names: (i) !"I3V 
'A dove,' the prophet's name, Jonah: (2) pill* 'The grace of Jehovah,' 
Johanan or John. This last is generally written 'luavdv or 'ludvrjs (the 
form 'ludwrjs with the double v has inferior support). Contracted it 
becomes 'Iwvav or 'Iwra, the first a being liable to be slurred over in 
pronunciation, because the Hebrew accent falls on the last syllable. 
For 'Iwvdv see i Chron. xii. 12 (A, Iwav K), xxvi. 3 (A), Neh. vi. 18 
(B), Ezra x. 6 (X corr. from Iwavav), i Esdr. ix. i (B), Luke iii. 27 
(v. 1.), iii. 30 (v. 1.); for 'Iwra, i Kings xxv. 23 (B), Luke iii. 30 (v. 1.). 
Thus the vios 'Iwavov of S. John is equivalent to the Bapiwj/a of S. 
Matthew. The longer form of the name of S. Peter's father was pre- 
served also in the Gospel of the Hebrews, as we learn from a marginal 
note in an early cursive MS (see Tischendorf, Notit. Cod. Sin. p. 58) 
on Matt. xvi. 17, 'Bapiwva TO 'lovdauov vlt 'Iwdvvov; and in an extant 
fragment inserted in the Latin translation of Origen in Matt. xix. 19 
(ill. p. 671 sq., ed. Delarue), but omitted in the Greek, we read 
* Simon fili Joanne, facilius est camelum etc.' From not understanding 
that the two are forms of the same name, some harmonizer devised the 
statement which we find in a list of Apostles preserved in the Paris 
MSS Reg. 1789, 1026 (quoted by Cotelier, Pair. Apost. I. p. 275), Ilefi-pos 
K(d 'AvSptas d5e\(poi, K Trarpbs 'luvd, /j.i)Tp<!)s 'Itaavva, or as it is otherwise 
read CK irarpos 'ludvvov, nijrpbs 'lavas. Our Lord seems to allude to 
the meaning of the word in Matt. xvi. 17 'Blessed art thou, Simon 
Bar Jona (Son of the Grace of God), for flesh and blood did not reveal 
it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' There is probably a 
similar allusion in all the passages in S. John. 

L. R. 12 


greatest confusion in the forms of another name, Ju- 
dah, Judas, Juda, Jude. Thus the patriarch is called 
both Juda and Judah in the same context (Heb. vii. 
14, viii. 8), and Judas and Juda in parallel narratives 
(Matt. i. 2, 3, Luke iii. 33) : and again, the brother of 
Jesus is called Judas in one Evangelist (Matt xiii. 
55) and Juda in another (Mark vi. 3). The principle 
of familiarity suggests Jude for the writer of the 
Epistle; Judah for the patriarch and the tribe and 
country named from him ; and Judas for Iscariot and 
for the other less known persons bearing the name; 
while Juda, which occurs for the patriarch or tribe 
(Luke iii. 33, Heb. vii. 14, Rev. v. 5, vii. 5) and the 
country (Matt. ii. 6, Luke i. 39), as well as for other 
unknown persons (Luke iii. 26 (?), 30), ought to dis- 
appear wholly. And so far as regards Judah and Judas, 
it would be well to follow this principle ; but, when 
the name is used of the author of the Epistle, though 
Jude might (if it were thought fit) be retained in the 
title, yet Judas should be substituted for Jude in the 
opening verse, so as not to preclude the identification 
of this person with the Lord's brother (which is highly 
probable), or again with his namesake in S. Luke's 
lists of the Apostles (which has commended itself to 

An error greater than any hitherto mentioned is 
the rendering of the female name Euodia (Evo&uav 


Phil. iv. 2) by the masculine Euodias 1 ; while con- 
versely it seems probable that we should render the 
name *lovvlav, one of S. Paul's kinsfolk, who was 
' noted among the Apostles' (Rom. xvi. 7), by Junias 
(i.e. Junianus), not Junia. 

Whether in certain cases a name should be re- 
tained or translated, will be a matter of question ; 
but no defence can be offered for the inconsistency of 
retaining ' Areopagus' in Acts xvii. 19 and rendering 
it ' Mars-hill' three verses below. Nor again is there 
any reason why /cpavlov TOTTO? should be translated 
' A (or the) place of a skull' in three Gospels (Matt, 
xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22, John xix. 17), and 6 TOTTO? 
6 Ka\ovfjievo<; icpaviov ' The place which is called Cal- 
vary* in the fourth (Luke xxiii. 33) 2 . In all places 
where it is possible, the practice of rendering seems to 
be preferable; and by the * Three Taverns' a fresh 
touch is added to the picture of S. Paul's journey 
(Acts xxviii. 15), which' would have been yet more 
vivid if consistently therewith our translators had 
rendered 'ATTTT/OU 3>6pov ' The Market of Appius/ as 
it stands in the Geneva Version 3 . / 

1 See above, p. 142. 

2 The word 'Jewry' which was common in the older Versions for 
Judah or Judaea, has almost disappeared in the Authorised Version of 
the New Testament, but still remains in two passages (Luke xxiii. 5, 
John vii. i). In Dan. v. 13 'The children of the captivity of Judah, 
whom the king my father brought out of Jewry,' the same word in the 
original is rendered both 'Judah' and 'Jewry.' 

3 Another fault is the rendering both Qoivil;, the haven of Crete 

12 2 


The question between reproduction and transla- 
tion becomes more important when we turn from 
proper names to official titles and technical terms, 
such as weights, measures, and the like. In the Old 
Testament our translators have frequently adopted 
the former principle, e.g. bath, cor, ephah, etc. : in the 
New, they almost universally adhere to the latter. 

In a Version which aims at being popular rather 
than literary, the latter course seems to be amply 
justified 1 . Yet, when the principle is conceded, the 
application is full of difficulty. The choice very 
often lies between giving a general expression which 

(Acts xxvii. 12), and ^oivlmj, the country of Phoenicia (Acts xi. 19, 
xv. 3), by the same word 'Phenice' (after the Bishops' and Geneva 
Bibles); while conversely $oivtKr) has two different renderings, 'Phenice' 
(xi. 19, xv. 3), and 'Phenicia' (xxi. 2). The older Versions generally, 
as late as the Great Bible, have 'Phenices' or 'Phenyces' for both words. 
Did our translators intend the final e of 'Phenice,' when it represents 
Phtenix, to be mute, on the analogy of Beatrix, Beatrice ? 

1 At all events, whichever course is adopted, it should be carried out 
consistently. Thus there is no reason why 'Papfil should be sometimes 
reproduced in the English Version (Matt, xxiii. 7, 8, John i. 38, 49, 
iii. 2, 26, vi. 25) and sometimes rendered 'Master' (Matt. xxvi. 25, 49, 
Mark ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45, John iv. 31, ix. 2, xi. 8), or in like manner 
why 'Papfiovvl, which only occurs twice, should be once translated 
'Lord' (Mark x. 51) and once retained (John xx. 16). 

In the same way the word 7rdcr%a, which is generally rendered 'Pass- 
over,' is represented once and only once by 'Easter.' (Acts xii. 4). 
This is a remnant of the earlier Versions in which iraaxa. is commonly 
translated so, even in such passages as Luke xxii. i ^ eoprr) TUV atf/Aw 
77 \eyo/j.tvij TrctVxa 'which is called Easter,' where however the Geneva 
and Bishops' Bibles substitute * Passover.' 


conveys no very definite idea, and adopting some 
technical term which is precise enough to the English 
ear but suggests a conception more or less at variance 
with the original. 

How, for instance, are we to treat dvOvTraros ? 
Wycliffe reproduced the Latin ' proconsul.' The 
earlier Versions of the Reformed Church generally 
give * ruler of the country/ ' ruler.' The Authorised 
Version adopts the rendering of the Geneva and 
Bishops' Bibles, 'deputy of the country/ * deputy.' 
This last has now nothing to recommend it. In the 
1 6th century, when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was 
styled Deputy, the word would convey a sufficiently 
precise idea; but now it suggests a wrong conception, 
if it suggests any at all. What sense, for instance, 
can an English reader attach to the words * The law 
is open, and there are deputies' (Acts xix. 38), which 
in the Authorised Version are given as the rendering 
of dyopaioi dyovrai, 1 KOI dvOvTraroi ela-w? The term 
which in the iQth century corresponds most nearly 
to the deputy of the i6th is lieutenant-governor, and 
indeed the Geneva Testament did in one passage 

1 Why the slovenly translation 'the law is open' should have been 
allowed to remain it is difficult to see. In the margin our translators 
suggest 'the court days are kept.' They would have earned our 
gratitude if in this and other cases they had acted with more boldness 
and placed in the text the more correct renderings which they have been 
content to suggest in the margin. 


(Acts xviii. 12) translate avdviraTos by 'lieutenant of 
the country/ but this rendering was dropped in the 
Geneva Bible, and not taken up again. To this pre- 
cise language however exception might be taken ; 
and if so, we should be obliged to fall back on some 
general term, such as ' governor,' 'chief-magistrate/ 
or the like. With the rendering of 7/)a/z//,areu9, ' town- 
clerk/ in Acts xix. 35, I should not be disposed to 
find fault, for it is difficult to suggest a more exact 
equivalent. In the context of the same passage how- 
ever (ver. 31) an English reader would not understand 
that the 'rulers of Asia' were officers appointed to 
preside at the festivals, and perhaps 'presidents of 
Asia' might be substituted with advantage (for the 
word occurs in the English Bible), though it is im- 
possible entirely to remove an obscurity which exists 
also in the Greek 'Acrta/)^?. In Rom. xvi. 23 the 
substitution of 'treasurer' for 'chamberlain' in the 
rendering of 6 oi/covofjios rrjs TroXew? would be an im- 
provement 1 ; for ' treasurer ' again is a good Biblical 
word, and we do not use 'chamberlain' to describe 
such an officer as is here intended 2 . 

On the whole however the rendering of official 
titles in our Version is fairly adequate and cannot be 

1 Wycliffe has 'treasurer,' the Rheims Version 'cofferer': while 
the Versions of the Reformed Church render it ' chamberlain. ' 

3 Perhaps I ought to except the Chamberlain of the Gty of London. 


much improved. If there is occasionally some incon- 
sistency and want of method, as for instance when 
is translated ' chief-captain' and e/caTovrap- 
reproduced as 'centurion' in the same context 1 
(Acts xxi. 31, 32, xxii. 24 26, xxiii. 17 23), still 
these renderings have established a prescriptive right, 
and an adequate reason must be shown for disturbing 
them. In Acts xvi. 35, 38 paftSovxot, 'lictors' is well 
rendered 'sergeants'; and in xxviii. 16 the translation 
of o-TpaT07reBdp%7js, the praefectus praetorio^ as 'captain 
of the guard' is a great improvement on the less 
precise renderings of the earlier Versions ; ' chief- 
captain of the host' (Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops'), 
'chief-captain' (Coverdale), 'general captain' (Geneva); 
and with the addition of one word might very well 
stand, ' chief-captain (or captain-general) of the guard.' 
On the other hand in Mark vi. 27 GTretcovXaTcop, which 
signifies ' a soldier of the guard,' should not have been 
rendered 'executioner' (in the earlier Versions it is 
' hangman'), for this term describes a mere accident of 

his office. 

But if official titles are on the whole fairly ren- 
dered, this is not the case with another class of 
technical terms, denoting coins, weights, and measures. 

As regards coins, the smaller pieces are more 

1 Some of the older Versions translate the words * upper ' or ' high 
captain,' and 'under captain,' respectively. 


adequately translated than the larger. No better 
rendering than 'mite' is possible for XeTrroV, or than 
* farthing' for KO^PCLVT^ 'quadrans'; and the relation 
of the two coins is thus preserved (Mark xii. 42 Xe-Trra 
&vo, o eariv /coSpdvTrjs). But from this point the inade- 
quacy and inconsistency begin. Why dao-dpiov, the 
late Greek diminutive used for the as, of which there- 
fore the KoSpdvTT]? is a fourth part, should still be 
translated a farthing*- (which elsewhere represents 
Ko^pdvnr]^) rather than a penny, it is difficult to see 
(Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6). And, as we advance in 
the scale, the disproportion between the value of the 
original coin and the English substitute increases. 
Thus the denarius, a silver piece of the value origi- 
nally of ten and afterwards of sixteen asses, is always 
rendered a penny. Its absolute value, as so much 
weight in metal, is as nearly as possible the same as 
the French franc. Its relative value, as a purchasing 
power, in an age and a country where provisions were 
much cheaper, was considerably more. Now, it so 
happens that in almost every case where the word 
&7)vdpi,ov occurs in the New Testament it is connected 
with the idea of a liberal or large amount ; and yet 
in these passages the English rendering names a sum 

1 In Matth. x. 29 the Geneva Testament (1557) had rendered 
dwapiov by a half-penny (as Wycliffe), and similarly 5vo aVad/ata in 
Luke xii. 6 by a penny. The rest give it ' a farthing,' as in the A. V. 


which is absurdly small. Thus the Good Samaritan, 
whose generosity is intended to appear throughout, 
on leaving takes out 'two pence' and gives them to 
the innkeeper to supply the further wants of the 
wounded man. Thus again the owner of the vine- 
yard, whose liberality is contrasted with the niggardly 
envious spirit, the * evil eye' of others, gives, as a 
day's wages, a penny to each man. It is unnecessary 
to ask what impression the mention of this sum will 
leave on the minds of an uneducated peasant or shop- 
keeper of the present day. Even at the time when 
our Version was made and when wages were lower, 
it must have seemed wholly inadequate 1 . The in- 
adequacy again appears, though not so prominently, 
in the two hundred pence, the sum named as insuf- 
ficient to supply bread to the five thousand (Mark vi. 
37, John vi. 7), and similarly in other cases (e.g. 
Mark xiv. 5, John xii. 5, Luke vii. 41). Lastly, 
in the Book of the Revelation (vi. 6) the announce- 
ment, which in the original implies famine prices, 

1 The rendering 'a penny* was probably handed down in this familiar 
parable from the time when this sum would be no inadequate remunera- 
tion for a day's labour ; but long before the Versions of the Reformed 
Church were made this had ceased to be the case. Even in Henry 
the VIHth's reign a labourer earned from sixpence to eightpence a 
day (Froude I. p. 29 sq.) ; though after the Restoration the rate of 
wages does not seem to have advanced much upon this amount (see 
Macaulay I. p. 413). 


is rendered in our English Version, 'A measure of 
wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley 
for a penny.' The fact is that the word ^olvi^, 
here translated 'measure/ falls below the amount 
of a quart, while the word Syvdpiov, here trans- 
lated 'a penny,' approaches towards the value of 
a shilling. To the English reader the words must 
convey the idea of enormous plenty 1 . Another word 
drachma occurs in the parable of the lost money in 
S. Luke xv. 8, 9, where it is translated piece of silver. 
Yet the Greek drachma is so nearly equal in value 
to the Roman denarius, that it may be questioned 
whether the same coin is not meant by both terms 2 ; 
and, if piece of silver or silver-piece is a reasonable 
translation of drachma, it might very well be em- 
ployed to render denarius. Again, in the incident 
relating to the tribute-money (Matt. xvii. 24 sq.) 
mention is made of two different coins or sums of 
money, the didrachma and the stater, the latter being 

1 A * measure ' in some parts of England is or was equivalent to a 
Winchester bushel. At all events it would suggest a large rather than 
a small quantity. 

2 See Plin. N.H. xxi. 109 'Drachma Attica denarii argentei habet 
pondus.' This parable does not occur in S. Matthew and S. Mark, 
and must have been derived by S. Luke from some independent 
source. Hence, as addressing Greek readers chiefly, he would not 
unnaturally name a Greek coin in preference. Similarly it was seen 
above (p. 1 24) that 6piv^ is confined to S. Luke in that portion of his 
narrative which does not run parallel with the other two Evangelists. 


double of the former; and this relation of value is 
important, and should have been preserved if possible, 
because it explains our Lord's words, 'Take it (the 
stater) and give unto them for me and for thee! In 
our Version however didrachma is rendered ' tribute- 
money, tribute/ and stater 'a piece of money.' Of 
larger amounts mina (fjLva) is translated a 'pound' 
in one parable (Luke xix. 13)*; while in two others 
(Matt, xviii. 24 sq., xxv. 14 sq.) talent is allowed 
to stand. From the latter of these comes the second- 
ary metaphorical sense of the word ' talent/ which has 
entirely superseded the literal meaning in common 

The treatment of measures again is extremely 
loose. The ^erp^r^ indeed is fairly rendered ' firkin* 
in John ii. 6; and the modius appears as 'bushel' (Matt. 
v. 15, Mark iv. 21, Luke xi. 33), where the English 
measure, though greatly in excess of the Latin, which 
is about a peck, may nevertheless remain undisturbed, 
since nothing depends on exactness. With these ex- 
ceptions, the one word ' measure' is made to do duty 
for all the terms which occur in the original. Thus 
in Rev. vi. 6, already quoted, it stands for a 

1 The Wycliffite Versions have 'besaunt* for (tva here ; but the care- 
lessness with which the word is used appears from the fact that they 
employ it also to render drachma on the one hand (Luke xv. 8) and 
lalcntum on the other (Matt, xviii. 24 (v. 1.), xxv. 16). 


something under a quart; and in other passages it 
represents not less than three Hebrew measures, the 
o-arov or seah (Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 21), the /Saro?, 
the bath or ephah, and the /copos, the cor or homer 
(both in Luke xvi. 6, 7), though the seah is one-third 
of the bath, and the bath one-tenth of the cor. In the 
former of these two passages from the Gospels accu- 
racy is unimportant, for the ' three measures of meal' 
in the parable will tell their tale equally, whatever 
may be the contents of the measure : though even 
here we may regret that our translators deserted the 
more precise ' peck,' which they found in some of the 
older Versions. But in Luke xvi. 6, 7, where the 
bath and the cor are mentioned in the same context, 
they should certainly be distinguished. The icopot, 
alrov might very well be rendered 'quarters of wheat* 
with Tyndale and several of the older Versions. 
For the fta-roi ekaLov it is more difficult to find an 
equivalent : Wycliffe renders /Sarou? by ' barrels'; the 
Rheims Version by 'pipes.' In Rev. vi. 6 it is still 
more important to aim at precision, because the ex- 
tremity of the famine only appears when the proper 
relation between the measure and the price is pre- 
served. Here %otwf might very well be translated 
<a quart.' 


This discussion has been occupied hitherto with 
questions affecting the correctness of our Version, as 
representing the Greek. It remains to consider the 
English in itself, as a literary production rather than 
as a translation, and to ask how far it is capable of 
amendment from this point of view. 

And here I certainly am not disposed to dissent 
from the universal verdict, in which those least dis- 
posed to stubborn conservatism have most heartily 
concurred, and which has been reasserted only the 
more emphatically since the question of revision was 
started. But those who have studied our English 
Version most carefully, and therefore have entered 
most fully into its singular merits, will be the least 
disposed to deny that here and there the reviser's 
hand may be employed with advantage. 

Under this head the archaisms demand to be 
considered first. Whatever may have been the feel- 
ing in generations past, there is no disposition in the 
present age to alter the character of our Version. 
The stately rhythm and the archaic colouring are 
alike sacred in the eyes of all English-speaking peo- 
ples. On the other hand it must be borne in mind 
that our Version addresses itself not to archaeolo- 
gists and critics, but to plain folk. And these two 


considerations combined should guide the pen of the 
reviser. So long as an archaism is intelligible, let it 
by all means be retained. If it is misleading or am- 
biguous or inarticulate, the time for removing it has 

As examples of innocent archaisms we might 
quote 'bewray,' 'despite/ 'list,' 'strait,' 'travail,' 
'twain/ and hundreds of others. Whether it would 
be necessary to wring the heart of the archaeologist 
by removing 'all to brake' and 'earing/ we need 
not stop to consider, as they do not occur in the 
New Testament. 

If on the other hand I were asked to point out a 
guilty archaism, I should lay my finger at once on 
the translation of iiepipvav in Matt. vi. 25, 31, 34, fj,ij 
/jLpi/j,vaT6 ry Tjrv%y vfjLoov TI <f)aryr)T6 ' Take no thought 
for your life, what ye shall eat/ ^ /j,epi/j,vr)(7r)Te \eyov- 
T69 rl (frcvycojjLev f Take no thought saying What shall 
we eat ?', /JLIJ {jLepi/jLvrjo-fiTe els rrjv avpiov ' Take no 
thought for the morrow.' I have heard of a political 
economist alleging this passage as an objection to 
the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount on 
the ground that it encouraged, nay commanded, a 
reckless neglect of the future. I have known of 
cases in which scrupulous consciences have been 
troubled by language seeming to condemn their 
most reasonable acts of care and forethought ; of 


others in which religious persons have been misled by 
this paramount authority (as it seemed to be) into a 
systematic improvidence. A knowledge of the Greek 
would have shown that it is not reasonable fore- 
thought but distress and anxiety about the future 
which our Lord forbids; for this, and not less than 
this, is the force of pepLiiva, as may be seen from 
such passages as I Pet. v. 7 iraaav rrjv fj,epi,fjivav vputv 
liriptyavres ITT CIVTOV, on avra> fjie\6i> irepl VJJLCOV, 
where the distinction of fj,epifj,va and /xeXetz/ is signi- 
ficant, though effaced in our English Version, * Cast- 
ing all your care upon Him, for He careth for you.' 
A study of English archaisms again would have 
taught that our translators did not intend what 
they seem to say, for to 'take thought' in the old 
language meant to distress or trouble oneself 1 . But 
the great mass of people have neither the time nor 
the opportunity, even if they had the capacity, for 
such investigations. This archaism therefore is one 
which at all hazards should disappear in any revision 
of the English Bible. For 'take no thought' some 
have suggested ' be not careful.' But this, though an 
improvement, is very far from adequate. For careful- 

1 *.. i Sam. ix. 5, 'Come, and let us return, lest my father.. .ta&r 
thought for us,' where the Hebrew verb is JN1, which Gesenius renders 
sollicilus fuit, anxie timuit. 'To die of thought' in the old language 
was to die heart-broken. On this archaism see Trench Authorized 
Version p. 14, Wright Bible Word- Book s. v. 


ness, though in the i6th and i/th centuries it might 
be a term of reproof 1 , in the modern language almost 
always implies commendation. In fact it is an archa- 
ism open to the same misapprehension, though not 
to the same degree, as ' take no thought.' ' Be not 
anxious' or 'be not troubled' would adequately ex- 
press the original. The word 'anxious/ it is true, 
does not occur in our English Bible, but this is one 
of those rare instances where our new revisers might 
well assume the liberty, which the authors of the 
Received Version certainly claimed and exercised 
before them, of introducing a new word, where the 
language has shifted and no old word conveys the 
exact meaning. 

But though ' take no thought' is the worst offender 
of all, yet other archaisms might with advantage be 
removed. We may suspect that many an English- 
man, when he hears of Zacharias ' asking for a writing 
table (Luke i. 63),' conceives a notion very different 
from the Evangelist's own meaning. We have heard 
how the enquiring school-boy has been perplexed at 

1 In fact it is used more than once to translate this very word ptpi/jLva, 
e.g. i Cor. vii. 32 *I would have you without carefulness,' i.e. anxiety 
(0Au> u/uas a/j.epi(jLt>ov$ etvai) ; Phil. iv. 6 'Be careful for nothing' (/ji.r)dev 

Latimer Serni. p. 400 (quoted in Wright's Bible Word-Book s. v.) 
speaks of ' this wicked carefulness,' an expression which in the modern 
language would be a contradiction in terms. 


reading that S. Paul and his companions 'fetched a 
compass' when they set sail from Syracuse (Acts 
xxviii. 13), not being able to reconcile this statement 
with the date given for the invention of this instru- 
ment. We can well imagine that not a few members 
of an average congregation, when the incident in the 
synagogue at Nazareth is read and they hear that 
the book, when closed, is handed 'to the minister 9 
(Luke iv. 20), do not carry away quite the correct 
idea of the person intended by this expression. We 
must have misgivings whether our Lord's injunction 
to the disciples to 'take no scrip' with them, or 
S. Luke's statement that the Apostle's company 
' took up their carriages and went up to Jerusalem ' 
(Acts xxi. 15), are universally understood. We may 
feel quite certain that the great majority of readers 
do not realise the fact (for how should they?) that 
by the highest and the lowest rooms in the parable 
are meant merely the places or seats 1 at the top or 
bottom of the same table, and that therefore the invi- 
tation to ' go up higher ' does not imply mounting a 
staircase to a more dignified reception-room in the 
upper storey. We find that even a scholarly divine" 

1 Again in i Cor. xiv. 16 ' He that occupieth the room of the un- 
learned,' a double archaism obscures the sense of the original 6 
avatrX-rjpwv TOV rbirov * He that fillet h the place? 

2 Blunt Church of the First Three Centuries p. 27 'She was to have 

L. R. 13 


seems to infer from S. Paul's language (i Tim. v. 4) 
the duty incumbent not only on children but even on 
nephews of providing for their aged relations ; and 
finding this we can hardly expect illiterate persons 
to know that in the old language nepJuw signifies 

Among these misleading archaisms the word coast 
for ' border ' or ' region ' is perhaps the most frequent. 
It would be unreasonable to expect the English 
reader to understand that when S. Paul passes 
* through the upper coasts ' (ra dvcorepi/ca pep'n) on his 
way to Ephesus (Acts xix. i ), he does in fact traverse 
the high land which lies in the interior of Asia Minor. 
Again in the Gospels, when he reads of our Lord 
visiting * the coasts of Tyre and Sidon ' (Matt. xv. 21, 
Mark vii. 31), he naturally thinks of the sea-board, 
knowing these to be maritime cities, whereas the 
word in one passage stands for pepy 'parts,' and in 
the other for opua ' borders,' and the circumstances 
suggest rather the eastern than the western frontier 
of the region. And perhaps also his notions of the 
geography of Palestine may be utterly confused by 
reading that Capernaum is situated 'upon the sea- 
coast' (Matt. iv. 13). 

Then again, how is such a person to know that 

none of those children able to minister to her nor yet nephews'; see 
Trench's Authorized Version p. [8. 


when S. Paul condemns ' debate ' together with envy, 
wrath, murder, and the like (Rom. i. 29, 2 Cor. xii. 
20), he denounces not discussion, but contention, strife 
(e/o*?); or that when he says, 'If any man have a 
quarrel against any' (Col. iii. 13), he means a com- 
plaint (querela), the original being exy pop$r)v ; or 
that, when S. James writes ' Grudge not one against 
another' (v. 9), the word signifies 'murmur' or 'be- 
moan ' (o-rei/afere) ? Even if he is aware that ' wicked 
lewdness* (Acts xviii. 14) does not signify gross sen- 
suality, will he also know conversely that by ' the 
hidden things of dishonesty ' (2 Cor. iv. 2) the Apostle 
means not fraudulence, want of probity, but 'secret 
deeds of shame* (alaxvvTjs) ? If context and common 
sense alike teach him that the ' highmindedness' which 
S. Paul more than once condemns (y"fyr)\o$poveiv, 
Rom. xi. 20, I Tim. vi. 17; rerv^wfievoi, 2 Tim. iii. 4) 
is not what we commonly understand by the term, 
will he also perceive that the ' maliciousness' which 
is denounced alike by S. Paul (Rom. i. 29 ' filled with 
maliciousness') and S. Peter (i Pet. ii. 16 'not using 
your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness') does not 
denote one special form of evil, but the vicious cha- 
racter generally (/caicla) ? 

Again, the expressions instantly and by and by 
may be taken in connexion, as being nearly allied. 
Yet in Biblical language neither signifies what it 



would signify to ourselves. Instantly has not a tem- 
poral sense at all, but means 'urgently,' as in Luke vii. 
4, 'They besought him instantly (o-7rou&u&)<?)': while 
on the other hand by and by, having a temporal sense, 
denotes not deferred but immediate action, standing 
most frequently for evQvs or evOecos and therefore cor- 
responding to the modern sense of instantly. Thus 
in the Greek of the parable of the sower the instan- 
taneous welcome of the word has its counterpart in 
the instantaneous apostasy under persecution (Matt, 
xiii. 2O, 2l) evQvs pera xapa? \a^avwv avrov, ev6i><? 
cr/cav$akieTai, ; but in the English Version this ap- 
pears, ' Anon with joy receiveth it/ * By and by he is 
offended ' ; where partly through the archaisms and 
partly through the change of words the expressiveness 
of the original is seriously blunted. 

The passage last quoted contains another archa- 
ism, which is a type of a whole class. Words derived 
from the Latin and other foreign languages being 
comparatively recent had very frequently not arrived 
at their ultimate sense when our Version was made, 
and were more liable to shift their meaning than 
others. We have witnessed this phenomenon in 
instantly, and the same was also the case with offend, 
offence. ' If thy right eye offend thee,' ' Woe unto him 
through whom the offences come,' do not convey to 
any but the educated reader the idea which they 


were intended to express. By substituting ' cause to 
offend ' (or perhaps ' cause to stumble ' or * to fall ') for 
4 offend,' we may in passages where the verb occurs 
bring out the idea more clearly; but in the case of 
the substantive the right of prescription and the diffi- 
culty of finding an equivalent may plead for the re- 
tention of the word. But where other Latinisms are 
concerned, no such excuse can be pleaded. Thus, 
' Occupy till I come ' (Trpay^arevaacrde, Luke xix. 
13) is quite indefensible. Wycliffe has marchaundise-. 
Purvey chaffer \ Tyndale buy and sell \ and it is diffi- 
cult to see why a word should have been substituted 
in the later Bibles, which must (one would think) 
have appeared novel and affected at the time, and 
which has changed its meaning since. I have sug- 
gested ' Trade ye ' above (p. 47). Another example 
is * O generation (yevvij/jLara) of vipers/ which the 
English reader inevitably takes to be a parallel ex- 
pression to ' a wicked and adulterous generation 
(yeved),' though the Greek words are quite different, 
and generation in the first passage signifies ' offspring' 
or ' brood ' two good old English words, either of 
which might advantageously be substituted for it. 
Another is the rendering of Acts xvii. 23, 'As I passed 
by and beheld your devotions ' (cre/Sacr/tara), where 
' your devotions ' is not a misrendering but an ar- 
chaism, signifying 'the objects of your worship/ 'your 


gods or idols/ Other instances again are I Tim. iii. 
13, 'They that have used the office of a deacon well, 
purchase ('jrepiTroiovvTcu) to themselves a good degree/ 
where the idea of traffic suggested by the modern 
use of the word is alien to the passage; and Matt. xviL 
25, 'When he was come into the house, Jesus pre- 
vented (TTpotyOacrev) him, saying, What thinkest thou, 
Simon ?', in which passage at all events the original 
meaning of ' prevent' would not suggest itself to the 
English reader. In both cases we might with advan- 
tage recur to the renderings of Tyndale, 'get' for 
* purchase/ and ' spake first ' for ' prevented/ 

From the word last mentioned we pass not un- 
naturally to the verb which it has supplanted. To 
prevent has taken the place of to let, meaning to check, 
to hinder, while this latter verb has become obsolete 
in this sense. Unnecessary and unadvisable as it 
would be to alter this archaism in such phrases as 
' Sore let and hindered in running the race that is 
set before us/ where it cannot mislead, its occur- 
rence in the New Testament is not always free from 
objection. In 2 Thess. ii. 7, for instance a passage 
difficult enough without any artificial obscurities 'He 
who now letteth will let? should not be allowed to 

Not very dissimilar to the last instance is the 
ambiguity of 'go about/ used in our Version as a 


common rendering of grjTeiv. In such passages as 
John vii. 19, 20, 'Why go ye about to kill me ?' 'Who 
goeth about to kill thee?', Acts xxi. 31 'As they went 
about to kill him/ it can hardly occur to the English 
reader that nothing more is meant than * seek to kill,' 
as the same phrase fyrelv aTTOKrelvai is translated 
elsewhere, and even in the very context of the first 
passage (John vii. 25). In Acts xxiv. 5, 6, again the 
misunderstanding is rendered almost inevitable by 
the context, ' A mover of sedition among all the Jews 
throughout the world... who also hath gone about to 
profane the temple' ; where the expression represents 
another verb similar to frjreiv in meaning, TO lepov 

After disposing of the archaisms, little remains to 
be said about the English of our Version. There are 
however some ambiguities of translation which arise 
from other causes. Thus Ephes. vi. 1 2 ' Against spi- 
ritual wickedness in high places* (TT/JO? ra Trvev/jLaTitcaTrjs 
Trovrjplas ev rot? &irovpavtoi$), where the English reader 
is led to think of vice in persons of rank and station ; 
Phil. iii. 14 ' The prize of your high calling' (rr;? dva) 
/cX^creo)?), where the English epithet rather suggests 
quality than locality as the original requires ; Col. iii. 
8 * But now you also/;// offz\\ these ' (vvvl Se diroOevOe 
KOI v/Meis TO, TrdvTa), where the sentence appears to be 
indicative instead of imperative; I Tim. iii. 16 'And 


without controversy (6jjio\oyov/jLevci)<;) great is the mys- 
tery of godliness/ where the meaning of 'controversy' 
is ambiguous, and where the older Versions translated 
6fJio\o<yov/jLeva)<; 'without nay' or 'without doubt'; 
Heb. v. 2 ' On the ignorant and on them that are out of 
theway' (ro?9 dyvoovcn KOI TrXayeoyu-ei/ot?), where the repe- 
tition of the preposition leads the English reader still 
further away from the proper sense of TrXavapevois ; 
Heb. v. 12 'For when for the time ye ought to be 
teachers ' (KCLI yap o<f>i\ovT6<> elvcn, SiBda/caXot, Sid TOV 
Xpovov), where without the Greek no one would ima- 
gine that 'for the time' means 'by reason of the long 
period of your training ' ; Apoc. iv. 1 1 ' For thy plea- 
sure they are, and were created (etVl KOI eKrio-Bfjaav 1 )^ 
where are reads as an auxiliary. In all such cases 
(and many other examples might be given) the 
remedy is easy. 

The great merit of our Version is its truly English 
character the strength and the homeliness of its lan- 
guage. Its authors were fully alive to the importance 
of preserving this feature, as impressed upon the Eng- 
lish Bible by Tyndale, and set their faces resolutely 
against the Latinisms to which the Rheims Version 
had attempted to give currency' 2 . In this they were 

1 So the received text: but the correct reading is rfffav for et<rl. 

2 In this Version I open a chapter accidentally (Ephes. iv) and find 
'donation of Christ,' 'interior parts,' 'doctors,' 'circumvention of 


eminently successful, as a rule ; and it is only to be 
regretted that they allowed themselves occasionally 
to depart from their principle where there was no 
adequate need. The word occupy, which I have al- 
ready considered from a different point of view, is 
an illustration. Another is addict in I Cor. xvi. 15. 
' They have addicted themselves (era^av eaurou?) to 
the ministry of the saints/ which rendering seems to 
have been introduced first in the Bishops' Bible, and 
cannot be considered an improvement on the Geneva 
Version, 'They have given themselves to minister 
unto the saints.' A more flagrant instance is 2 Cor. 
ix. 13, where a concurrence of Latinisms obscures the 
sense and mars the English, 'By the experiment of 
this ministration they glorify God for your professed 
subjection unto the Gospel of Christ/ where ' experi- 
ment ' and ' professed ' ought at all events to be al- 
tered as they have shifted their meaning, and where 
for once the Rheims Version gives purer English, 
' By the proof of this ministry glorifying God in the 
obedience of your confession unto the Gospel of 
Christ' (Siarrj? Bo/ci/Ar)? rrjs Sia/covias ravTTjs Sofafoz/re? 
rov eoz> eVl r/7 vTrorayfj T^? 6{ioXoyias VJJLWV et? TO 
vayye\iov rov 

errour,' 'juncture of subministration,' 'vanity of their sense,' 'impu- 
dicity,' 'contristate.' Yet it was published nearly thirty years before the 
Authorised Version. 


A fault of another kind is translating o$e\ov ' I 
would to God' (i Cor. iv. 8), though the earlier Ver- 
sions all give it so, with the exception of Wycliffe 
whose simpler rendering ' I would ' might be adopted 
with advantage. In this case the introduction of the 
Divine name is hardly defensible. In the case of yu?) 
yevoiro ' God forbid/ the difficulty of finding another 
idiomatic rendering may possibly excuse it. Yet 
even here we cannot but regret a rendering which in- 
terferes so seriously with the argument, as it presents 
itself to the English reader, in such passages as 
Rom. iii. 4, 6, ' God forbid ; yea, let God be true (/AT) 
yevoiro, yw<r&oo 8e 6 eo? a\7)dr)<s)? ' God forbid ; for 
then how shall God judge the world (fir) yevoiro, eVet 

7T059 KplVel 6 60? TOV KOCTfJiOv) ? ' 

I shall pass over instances of careless grammar 
in the English, because these are not numerous and 
have been dealt with elsewhere. But it may be worth 
while to point out inadvertences of another kind ; 
where the same word is twice rendered in the English 
Version, or where conversely the same English 
word is made to do duty for two Greek words. Of 
the latter, examples occur in John xi. 14 ' Then (rore 
ovv) said Jesus unto them plainly/ where ' then ' 
stands for two words, ' then ' local and ' then ' argu- 
mentative ; or Rom. vi. 2 1 ' What fruit had ye then 
(riva ovv icapTrbv e^ere Tore) in those things whereof 


ye are now ashamed ?', where exactly the same error 
is committed. Of the converse error the double ren- 
dering of the same word we have an instance in 
James v. 16, TTO\V lo-^vei Se?;cn9 Si/caiov evepyov^evrj, 
'The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man 
availeth much,' where the word ' effectual ' is worse 
than superfluous. This last rendering I am disposed 
to ascribe to carelessness in correcting the copy for 
the press. The word would be written down on the 
copy of the Bishops' Bible which the revisers used, 
either as a tentative correction or an accidental gloss ; 
and, not having been erased before the copy was sent 
to the press, would appear in the text 1 . 

To the same cause also we may perhaps ascribe 
the rendering of I Cor. xiv. 23, eav ovv crvve\6r) 77 
eKic\T]a-ia o\rj eVt TO avro. In the Bishops' Bible this 
stands, ' If therefore all the Church be come together 
into one place/ but in the Authorised, ' If therefore 
the whole Church be come together into some place.' 
I presume that the revisers intended to alter 'one' 

1 In the Bishops' Bible, which the translators had before them, the 
passage runs 'the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.' 
The only fact connected with previous Versions which I can discover as 
throwing any light on the insertion of this word 'effectual' is a marginal 
note in Tomson's New Testament, printed with the Geneva Bible ; 
'He commendeth prayers by the effects that come of them, that all men 
may understand that there is nothing more effectual than they are, so 
that they proceed from a pure mind.' 


into ' the same,' but that this correction was indis- 
tinctly made, and being confused with the other cor- 
rection in the same clause which required a trans- 
position of ' the,' led to the error which stands in our 
text. What misconception may arise from a mere 
error of the press appears from the often discussed 
phrase, ' Strain &t a gnat' ; where unquestionably our 
translators intended to retain the rendering of the 
earlier Versions, ' Strain out a gnat,' and the existing 
text can only be explained as a misprint. Indeed 
the printing of the edition of 1611 is very far from 
correct ; and if our present Bibles for the most part 
deserve praise for great accuracy, we owe this to the 
fact that the text of this first edition was not regarded 
as sacred or authoritative, but corrections were freely 
introduced afterwards wherever a plain error was de- 
tected. Thus in Exod. xxxviii. 1 1 ' Hoopes of the 
pillars' has been altered into 'hooks of the pillars '; in 
Isaiah xlix. 20 'The place is too straight' into 'The 
place is too strait* '; in Hos. vi. 5 'Shelved them by 
the prophets' (where the word 'shewed' was evi- 
dently introduced by an ingenious compositor who 
did not understand the correct text) into 'Hewed 
them by the prophets'; in Ecclus. xliv. 5 'Rejected 
verses' into ' recited verses '; and the like. In the 
headings of the chapters too some curious errors in 
the edition of 1611 were afterwards corrected; e.g. 


2 Sam. xxiv. ' eleven thousand ' into ' thirteen hundred 
thousand,' I Cor. v. 'shamed' into 'shunned 1 .' Nay, 
in some passages the changes made in later editions 
are even bolder than this; as for instance in I Tim. i. 4, 
ol/coSofjilav [the correct reading is oltcovofjbtav] eo> TTJV 
eV Trio-ret ' Edifying which is in faith/ the word 0eo{) 
by some inadvertence was untranslated in the edition 
of 1611, and so it remained for many years after- 
wards, until in the Cambridge edition of 1638 'godly' 
was inserted after the earlier Versions, and this has 
held its ground ever since 2 . As this wise liberty was 
so freely exercised in other cases, it is strange that 
the obvious misprint 'strain at' should have survived 
the successive revisions of two centuries and a half. 

While speaking of errors and corrections of the 
press, it may be worth while in passing to observe 

1 The corrections in Ecclus. xliv. 5, 2 Sam. xxiv, were made in 1612: 
those in Exod. xxxviii. n, Is. xlix. 20, Hos. vi. 5, i Cor. v, in 1613. 
A number of errors however still remained, which were removed from 
time to time in later editions. The edition of 1613, though it corrected 
some blunders, was grossly inaccurate, as may be seen from the colla- 
tion with the edition of 1611, prefixed to the Oxford reprint of the 
latter (1833). 

2 I owe this fact, which has probably been noticed elsewhere, to 
some valuable MS notes of the late Prof. Grote on the printing of the 
English Bible. The error may be explained by supposing that the word 
'godly' was struck out in the copy of the Bishops' Bible altered for the 
press, while the proposed substitution was omitted to be made or was 
made in such a way that it escaped the eye of the compositor. 


how this license of change has affected the ortho- 
graphy. It would be a surprise to an English reader 
now to find in his Bible such words as aliant, causey, 
charet, cise, crudle, damosell, fauchion, fet, fift, flixe, 
iland, mids, moe, monethes, neesing, oweth (Lev. xiv. 
35 for 'owneth'), price (Phil. iii. 14 for 'prize'), re- 
nowme, etc. While these have been altered into 
alien, causeway, chariot, size, curdle, damsel, falchion, 
fetched, fifth, flux, island, midst, more, months, sneez- 
ing, owneth, prize, renown, respectively, a capricious 
conservatism has retained the archaic spelling in 
other cases, such as fat, fetches, graff, hoise, pilled, 
strawed, throughly, for vat, vetches, graft, hoist, peeled, 
strewed, thoroughly. In some cases this caprice ap- 
pears in the same word ; thus neesings is retained in 
Job xli. 1 8, while sneezed is substituted for neesed in 
2 Kings iv. 35. This license has had its disadvan- 
tages as well as its advantages ; if the substitution of 
'its' for 'it' (Lev. xxv. 5, 'it owne accord' i6ii l ) was 
imperatively demanded by the change in the lan- 
guage, the alteration of ' shamefast, shamefastness' 
into 'shamefaced, shamefacedness' is unfortunate, as 
suggesting a wrong derivation and an inadequate 
meaning. Amidst all these changes it is a happy 
accident that the genuine form of the name of Phile- 
mon's wife has survived, though the precedent of the 

1 See Wright's Bible Word-Book, s. v. //. 


older Versions and the authority of modern commen- 
tators alike would have led to the substitution of the 
Latin name 'Appia' for the Phrygian 'ApphiaV 


I have attempted to show in what directions our 
English Version is capable of improvement. It will 
be necessary to substitute an amended for a faulty 
text ; to remove artificial distinctions which do not 

1 In Philem. 2 the reading is unquestionably 'A7r0ig, though some 
uncial MSS (of little value on a point of orthography) have a00a, a 
legitimate form, or dfjufriq., a manifest corruption: the authority for 
'ATTTria is absolutely worthless. The fact is that this word has no con- 
nexion (except in sound) with the Roman Appia, but represents a native 
Phrygian name, which with various modifications appears again and 
again in the Phrygian inscriptions: e.g. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 
Xei'/ccu/Spos /cat 'A00a yvvrj avrov, 3826 Hpurbpaxos 'A0[0]ta ywatKi, 
3932 m rfjyvvaiid avrov 'A[7r]0i'p, 3962 'A7r0i'a eyu /ret/icu, 3827 1 (Appx.) 
'A00ia 'Mevai'Spov, 3846 z (Appx.) BwXas 'A00i'a ffwftltp. Frequently 
also we meet with the diminutive air<f>i.ov, &(p<f>ioi', or &<j.ov, as a female 
name; e.g. 3849, 3891, 3899, 3902 m, 3846 z (Appx.). The form 
"ATTTTT; however sometimes occurs. This word may be compared with 
other common Phrygian names, Ammia, Nania, Tatia, and the mascu- 
line Pappias or Papias. 

Not observing the Phrygian origin of the name, the commentators 
speak as though it were the feminine corresponding to the masculine in 
Acts xxviii. 15 'Aiririov <j>bpov, and call attention to the difference in 
form, ?T0 for TTTT. All the older translations, so far as I have observed, 
print it Appia, so that the Authorised Version stands alone in its cor- 


exist in the Greek ; to restore real distinctions which 
existing there were overlooked by our translators ; to 
correct errors of grammar and errors of lexicography; 
to revise the treatment of proper names and technical 
terms ; and to remove a few archaisms, ambiguities, 
and faults of expression, besides inaccuracies of editor- 
ship, in the English. All this may be done without 
altering the character of the Version. 

In this review of the question I have done nothing 
more than give examples of the different classes of 
errors. An exhaustive treatment of the subject was 
impossible; and the case therefore is much stronger 
than it is here made to appear. If for instance any 
one will take the trouble to go through some one 
book of the New Testament, as the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, referring to any recent critical edition of 
the Greek text and comparing it carefully with the 
English, he will see that the faults of our Version are 
very far from being few and slight or imaginary. But 
if a fair case for revision has been made out, it still re- 
mains to ask whether there is any reasonable prospect 
of success, if the attempt be made at the present time. 

Now in one important point perhaps the most 
important of all the answer must, I think, be favour- 
able. Greek scholarship has never stood higher in 
England than it does at the present moment. There 
is not only a sufficient body of scholars capable of 


undertaking the work, but there is also (and this is a 
most important element in the consideration) a very 
large number besides fully competent to submit the 
work of the revisers, when completed, to a minute and 
searching criticism. And, though we may trust that 
anyone who is called to take his share in the work 
will do so with a deep sense of the responsibility 
of the task assigned to him, still it will be a great 
stimulus to feel that he is surrounded by competent 
critics on all sides, and a great support to be able 
to gather opinions freely from without. But I would 
venture to go a step beyond this. I should be glad to 
think my apprehensions groundless, but there is at 
least some reason to forbode that Greek scholarship 
has reached its height in England, and that hence- 
forth it may be expected to decline 1 . The clamours 
of other branches of learning more especially of 
scientific studies for a recognised place in general 
education are growing louder and louder, and must 
make themselves heard ; and, if so, the almost ex- 

1 Mr Marsh (Lectures on the English Language, xxviii, p. 639) says 
* There is no sufficient reason to doubt that at the end of this century 
the knowledge of biblical Greek and Hebrew will be as much in 
advance of the present standard, as that standard is before the sacred 
philology of the beginning of this century.' I wish I could take this 
very sanguine view of the probable future of the Greek language in 
England : as regards Hebrew, I have abstained from expressing an 

L. R. 14 


elusive dominion of the Classical languages is past. 
I need not here enter into the question whether 
these languages have or have not been overrated as 
an instrument of education. It is sufficient to call 
attention to the fact that, whether rightly or wrongly, 
public opinion is changing in this respect, and to 
prepare for the consequences. 

And, if we turn from the Greek language to the 
English, the present moment seems not unfavourable 
for the undertaking. Many grave apprehensions 
have been expressed on this point, and alarming pic- 
tures are drawn of the fatal results which will follow 
from any attempt to meddle with the pure idiom of 
our English Bible. Of the infusion of Latinisms and 
Gallicisms, with which we are threatened, I myself 
have no fear. In the last century, or in the beginning 
of the present, the danger would have been real. 
The objections urged against the language of our 
English Bible by those who then advocated revision 
are now almost incredible. The specimens which 
they offered of an improved diction of the modern 
type would appear simply ludicrous to us, if the 
subject, on which the experiment was tried, had been 
less grave 1 . The very words which these critics 

1 See examples in Trench's Authorized Version, p. 23 sq., and Prof. 
Plumptre's article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Version, Autho- 
rised. ' I remember the relief,' writes Mr Matthew Arnold (Culture and 


would have ejected from our English Bibles, as bar- 
barous or uncouth or obsolete, have again taken their 
place in our highest poetry, and even in our popular 
language. And though it is impossible that the 
nineteenth century should ever speak the language of 
the sixteenth or seventeenth, still a genuine appre- 
ciation and careful study of the Authorised Version 
and of the older translations will (we may reasonably 
hope) enable the present revisers, in the corrections 
which they may introduce, to avoid any anachronisms 
of diction which would offend the taste or jar upon 
the ear. There is all this difference between the pre- 
sent advocates of revision and the former, that now 
we reverence the language and idiom of our English 
Bibles, whereas they regarded it as the crowning 
offence which seemed most to call for amendment. 
In several instances the end may be attained by 
returning to the renderings of the earlier Versions > 
which the revisers of 1611 abandoned. In almost 
every other case the words and even the expressions 

Anarchy, p. 44), 'with which after long feeling the sway of Franklin's 
imperturbable good sense, I came upon a project of his for a new 
version of the Book of Job to replace the old version, the style of which, 
says Franklin, has become obsolete and thence less agreeable. "I 
give," he continues, "a few verses which may serve as a sample of the 
kind of version I would recommend."...! well remember how wheA 
first I read that, I drew a deep breath of relief and said to myself: 
After all, there is a stretch of humanity beyond Franklin's victorious 
good sense.' 



which the correction requires will be supplied from 
some other part of the Authorised Version itself. 
Very rare indeed are the exceptions where this assis- 
tance will fail and where it may be necessary to in- 
troduce a word for which there is no authority in the 
English Bibles. In these cases care must be taken 
that the word so introduced shall be in harmony with 
the general character of our biblical diction. So 
much license the new revisers may reasonably claim 
for themselves, as it was certainly claimed by the 
revisers of 1611. If these cautions are observed the 
Bible will still remain to future generations what it 
has been to past not only the store-house of the 
highest truth, but also the purest well of their native 
English. Indeed we may take courage from the fact, 
that the language of our English Bible is not the 
language of the age in which the translators lived, 
but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to 
the ornate and often affected diction of the literature 
of that time 1 . For if the retention of an older and 
better model was possible in the seventeenth century, 
it is quite as possible in the nineteenth. 

Nor again can there be any reasonable ground 
for apprehension as to the extent and character of 
the changes which may be introduced. The regula- 
tions under which the new company of revisers will 

1 See Marsh's Lectures, p. 621 sq. 


act are a sufficient guarantee against hasty and capri- 
cious change. The language which public speakers 
and newspaper critics have held on this point would 
only then have force, if absolute power were given 
to each individual reviser to introduce all his favourite 
crotchets. But anyone, who has acted in concert with 
a large number of independent men, trained apart 
and under separate influences, will know how very 
difficult it is to secure the consent of two-thirds of the 
whole body to any change which is not a manifest 
improvement, and how wholly impossible it would be 
to obtain the suffrages of this number for a novel and 
questionable rendering, however important it might 
seem to its proposer. It is very possible that several 
corrections which I have suggested here may appear 
to others in this unfavourable light. Indeed it is 
hardly probable that in all cases they should escape 
being condemned ; for anyone, interested in such a 
subject, is naturally led to give prominence to those 
views on which he lays stress himself, just because 
they appear to him not to have received proper 
attention from others. But if so, it is morally certain 
that they will be treated as they deserve, and not 
suffered to disfigure the Revised Version as it will 
appear before the public. Indeed if there be any 
reasonable grounds for apprehension, the danger is 
rather that the changes introduced will be too slight 


to satisfy the legitimate demands of theology and 
scholarship, than that they will be so sweeping as to 
affect the character of our English Bible. 

Lastly ; in one respect at least the present Revi- 
sion is commenced under very auspicious circum- 
stances. There has been great liberality in inviting 
the cooperation of those Biblical scholars who are not 
members of the Anglican communion, and they on 
their part have accorded a prompt and cheerful wel- 
come to this invitation. This is a matter for great 
thankfulness. It may be accepted as a guarantee 
that the work is undertaken not with any narrow 
sectarian aim, but in the broad interests of truth ; 
while also it is an earnest that, if the revision when 
completed recommends itself by its intrinsic merits 
(and if it does not, the sooner it is forgotten the 
better), then no unworthy jealousy will stand in the 
way of its general reception 1 . And meanwhile may 
we not cherish a loftier hope ? Now for the first time 
the bishops of our Church and the representatives of 

1 'At this day,' wrote Mr Marsh in 1859, 'there could be no har- 
mony of action on this subject between difterent churches... So long as 
this sectarian feeling for it can be appropriately designated by no other 
term prevails on either side, there can be no union upon conditions 
compatible with the self-respect of the parties ' (p. 641 sq.). This pre- 
liminary difficulty at least has been overcome ; the 'better counsels,' of 
which this able writer seems to have despaired, have prevailed ; no 
wound has been inflicted on self-respect ; and entire harmony 01 action 
has been attained. 


our Convocation will meet at the same table with 
Nonconformist divines, and will engage in a common 
work of a most sacred kind the interpretation of 
those Writings which all alike reverence 'as the source 
of their truest inspiration here and the foundation of 
their highest hopes hereafter. Is it too much to 
anticipate that by the experience of this united work 
the Christian communities in England may be drawn 
more closely together, and that, whether it succeed or 
fail in its immediate object, it may at least dissipate 
many prejudices and jealousies, may promote a 
better mutual understanding, and thus by fostering 
inward sympathy may lead the way to greater out- 
ward harmony among themselves, and a more intimate 
union with the Divine Head 1 ? 

1 It will be remembered that this hope was expressed before the 
Revision Company had met. If I felt at liberty to modify the expres- 
sion by the light of subsequent experience, I should speak even more 

On the Words ITTLOVCTLOS, 

r I ^HE former of these two words, found only in 
* a petition of the Lord's Prayer, as given both 
by S. Matthew (vi. 1 1 TOV aprov TJJJLWV TOV ejriova-iov 
809 rjplv <rr}/jipov) and by S. Luke (xi. 3 TOV aprov 
TIH&V rov ITTLOVCTIOV SiSov ^yCiv TO KOU& y/jiepav), is 
a well-known difficulty in Biblical interpretation; 
and it is certainly a remarkable fact that so much 
diversity of opinion should be possible regarding an 
expression which occurs in this most familiar and 
oftenest repeated passage of the Gospels. 

Origen tells us (de Orat. 27, I. p. 245 Delarue) 
that the word iiriovaiov does not once occur in Greek 
literature and that it is not current in the colloquial 
language (Trapa ovSevl TWV 'EXX^z/wi/ ot/re TCOV aocpoov 
<ov6fJia(7Tai, ovre ev Ty TWV IBicoTaiv (rvvrjOeia Te 


* It seems,' he adds, ' to have been coined 
by the Evangelists. Matthew and Luke agree in 
using it without any difference. The same course 
has been taken in other cases also by persons trans- 
lating from the Hebrew. For what Greek ever used 
either of the expressions eixorigov or dicovrla-BrjTL^... 
A similar expression to eiriovaiov occurs in Moses, 
being uttered by God, But ye shall be to me a people 
irepiovcnos. And it seems to me that both words 
are formed from ova-la? 

This statement is important, because it shows 
that the Greek Fathers derived no assistance in the 
interpretation of the word from the spoken or written 
language; and thus their views are not entitled to 
the deference which we should elsewhere accord to 
them, as interpreters of a living language of which 
we only possess the fragmentary remains. In this 
particular instance they cease to be authorities. The 
same data, which were open to them, are open to us 
also ; and from these we are free to draw our con- 
clusions independently. 

These data are threefold: (i) The etymological 
form ; (2) The requirements of the sense ; (3) The 
tenor of tradition. 

This last element seems to me to be especially 
important in the present case. The Lord's Prayer 
was doubtless used from very early times in private 


devotion. It certainly formed a part of the public 
services of the Church, in which (to mention no other 
use) it was repeated at the celebration of the Holy 
Eucharist 1 . The traditional sense therefore which 
was commonly attached to a word occurring in it 
must have a high value. 

It was chiefly the conviction that justice had not 
been done to this consideration, which led me to 
institute the investigation afresh 2 . Previous writers 
have laid stress on the scholastic interpretation of 
Origen and his successors, as though this were the 
best authenticated tradition ; when they ought rather 
to have sought for the common sense of the Church 
in the primitive versions, which are both earlier in 
date than Origen, and cover a much wider area. I 
hope to make the force of the distinction between 
the scholastic and traditional interpretations clearer 
in the sequel. 

The different explanations which have been given 
to the word fall into two classes ; (i) Those which 

1 Of the use of the Lord's Prayer in the early Church, see Bingham's 
Antiquities, xill. vii. i sq., and Probst Liiurgie der drei ersten Christ- 
lichen Jahrhunderte, index s. v. Vater zmser. 

2 The fullest recent investigation of the meaning of eirtovfftos, with 
which I am acquainted, is in Tholuck's Exposition of the Sermon on the 
Mount, II. p. 172 sq. (Eng. trans.), where he arrives at conclusions 
different from my own. He gives a list of previous treatises on the sub- 
ject. Among the more important are those of Pfeiffer and Stolberg in 
the Thesaur. Theol. PhiloL II. pp. 116 sq., 123 sq. (Amstel. 1702). 


connect it with levai, deriving it from eirieveu through 
eirutiv or eTriovaa, and (2) Those which connect it 
with elvcu, as a compound from eVl and ovcria. Each 
class includes various explanations; but the one is 
distinguished from the other by a simple criterion. 
The meanings belonging to the one class are tem- 
poral ; to the other, qualitative. 

In the first class we find the following : (i) to- 
morrow's, derived directly from eTnovva 'the coming- 
day,' or 'the morrow' : (ii) coming, either taken from 
eirtovaa and meaning the same as the last, but more 
vaguely expressed ; or derived directly from vmkvai, 
ennwv (without the intervention of the feminine e?rt- 
ovaa) : (iii) daily, which seems to be got from the 
first sense, 'for the coming day' : (iv) continual, 
which is probably a paraphrastic mode of expressing 
(i) or (iii): (v) future, 'yet to come,' from eViwi/; in 
which case the expression is most often applied in a 
spiritual sense to Christ the Bread of Life, Who shall 
come hereafter. 

Under the second head also various explanations 
are comprised ; (i) for our sustenance, and so 'neces- 
sary,' ovcria being referred to physical subsistence; 
(ii) for our essential life, and so 'spiritual, eternal,' 
ova-ia signifying the absolute or higher being; (iii) 
preeminent, excellent, surpassing, as being 'above all 
overlap and so nearly equivalent to Trepiova-io? ; (iv) 


abundant, a meaning akin to the last, and apparently 
reached by giving the same sense 'above' to eW; 
(v) consubstantial, a sense which is attained by forcing 
the meaning of the preposition in another direction 1 . 

In this list I have enumerated only those mean- 
ings which were given to the word during the first 
five centuries. More recent writers have added to the 
number ; but their interpretations, when not deduced 
directly from one or other of the senses already 
given, are so far-fetched and so unnatural, that they 
do not deserve to be seriously considered. 

Again, I have confined myself to direct interpreta- 
tions of eVtouo-io?, not regarding such variations of 
meaning as arise from different senses attached to 
the substantive apros. Thus for, instance 'our daily 
bread' might be either the daily sustenance for the 
body or the daily sustenance for the soul. But 
though these two senses are widely divergent, their 
divergence is not due to any difference of interpreta- 
tion affecting eVtoi/trto?, with which word alone I am 

I shall now consider the two classes of meanings 
which are distinguished above, testing them by the 
considerations already enumerated, (i) the etymology 
of the word, (2) the requirements of the sense, (3) the 
tenor of tradition. 

1 See the passage from Victorinus quoted below on p. 245. 


i. The etymology of the word. 

'H eVtoOo-a is commonly used for 'the coming 
day/ 'the morrow.' In this sense it occurs frequently 
without the substantive rjnepa both in Biblical Greek 
(Prov. xxvii. I ov */ap yivwcr/ceis TI regerai 77 eTriovcra, 
Acts xvi. II, xx. 15, xxi. 18) and elsewhere (e.g. Polyb. 
ii. 25. n, Pausan. iv. 22. 3, Plut. Mor. 205 E, 838 D, 
etc.). See also the references in Lobeck Phryn. p. 464. 
From this word, which had become practically a sub- 
stantive, the adjective eVtouc-jo? would be formed in 
the usual way. 

It is urged indeed (see Suicer Thes. s. v. eVtov- 
<o?), that the analogy of SevrcpaLos, Tpiratos, etc., 
would require eiriovvalos. In replying to this objec- 
tion we need not (I venture to think) acquiesce in 
the negative answer that such adjectives are not 
valid to disprove the existence of a different form 
in -to9. Whether we regard the etymology or the 
meaning, the analogy seems to be false. The termi- 
nation -ato? in all these adjectives is suggested by 
the long a or 77 of the feminines from which they 
are derived, Sevrepa, rpiTij, etc. 1 ; and the short ending 

1 It is not meant to assert that forms in cuos cannot be derived from 
other words than feminines in d or 17 ; but as a rule they are derived in 
this way, though some exceptions occur : see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. 
II. p. 446. 



of eiriovcra is not a parallel case. Moreover the 
meaning is not the same ; for the adjectives in -ato? 
fix a date, e.g. rerapralo^ rf\dev 'he came on the 
fourth day] whereas the sense which we require here 
is much more general, implying simply possession or 

Or again, the word might be derived from the 
masculine participle ITTLMV, as e/cova-ios from e/ccov, e'0e- 
Xouo-to? from e#e\o>z/, ryepovcrios from yepwv, Trvyovcrio? 
from TTVJWV, 'Axepova-ios (or ' A^epoz/rto?) from ' A^epwz/, 
etc. : see Lobeck Phryn. p. 4. To this derivation 
there is no grammatical objection. Only it may be 
pleaded that no motive existed for introducing an 
adjective by the side of eiriwv, sufficiently powerful 
to produce the result in an advanced stage of the 
language, when the fertility of creating new forms 
had been greatly impaired. 

On the other hand the derivation of eiriovcios 
from eTrl and ovaia, if not impossible, is at least more 
difficult. Two objections have been taken to this 
etymology; the one, as it seems to me, futile the 
other really formidable, if not insuperable, (i) It 
is alleged that an adjective in -ovcrios would not be 
formed from the substantive ovaia. To this it is 
sufficient to reply, that from this very word ov&ia we 
find the compounds dvova-ios (Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 
p. 970, ed. Potter: Pseudo- Justin Conf. dogm. Arist* 


50, p. 145 ; ib. Quaest. Christ, ad Gent. p. 185 B), 
eVovo-to? (Victorin. c. Arium ii. i, Synes. Hymn. 2, 
p. 318, Cyril. Alex, in Joann. v. 5, p. 527), efouo-to? 
(Philo in Place. 10, II. p. 528 Mang.), ere/jouorto? (ere- 
Porphyr. in Stob. Eel. Phys. 41, n. p. 822), 
, opoofoios, vTrep overtop (Victorin. 1. c., Synes. 
1. c.), Trpoavovo-ios (Synes. Hymn. 1. c., and Hymn. 3, p. 
322), etc. : and from egova-ia the compounds auref ov- 
er to? (frequently, e.g. Diod. xiv. 105) and vTrefouo-to? 
<see Steph. Thes. s. v., ed. Dindorf & Hase). (2) On 
the other hand, to the objection that the form should 
.be eVotKrto?, not eVtouo-to?, I do not see what valid 
.answer can be given. It has been thought sufficient 
to adduce in reply such words as eiriavSdvto, eTriovpa, 
.eirioa'crofjLai, which however are confined to poetry ; 
and again eirieiicfa eirloptcos 1 , which occur also in 
prose. To this list other words might be added, such 
as eVteXTTTO?, e7rtez>z/i//u, farfajpa, eTriijpavos, eTruBfjLtov, 
eiruffTwp. But the maintainers of this view have never 
enquired why the i of eW, which elsewhere is elided, 
has been exceptionally retained in such instances. 
The real fact is, that all these words without ex- 
ception were originally written with the digamma, 
eVtFaz>Sai>o>, eirifeucrj?, eViFeXTrro?, eV/Fop/eo?, etc., so 
that elision was out of the question ; and even when 

1 tiribySoos is also adduced ; but in the only passage quoted for this 
form, Plat. Tim. 36 A, B, the best editions have the usual form ei 


the digamma disappeared in pronunciation or was 
replaced by a simple aspirate, the old forms main- 
tained their ground. 

In the present instance no such reason can be 
pleaded to justify the retention of the i. The deriva- 
tion of eiriovcrios from eiri, ovcrta, can only be main- 
tained on the hypothesis that its form was determined 
by false analogies, with a view to exhibiting its com- 
ponent parts more clearly. But this hypothesis is 
not permissible if any other satisfactory explanation 
of the word can be given ; for eVtouo-to? would then 
be the single exception to the rule which determines 
compounds of eVt. In fact, the compound eVouo-tey&j?? 
is found occasionally, thus showing that the final 
vowel of the preposition is naturally elided before 

2. The requirements of the sense. 

It has been shown that etymological considera- 
tions favour the root Ikvai as against eivai. It will 
be necessary in the next place to ask whether the 
exigencies of the sense require us to reverse the 
decision to which etymology has led us. Is there 
really any solid objection to our taking TOV dpTov 
rjfiwv TOV 7rt,ov<ri,ov to mean ' our bread for the coming 

L. R. 15 


One objection, and one only, is urged repeatedly 
against this explanation. The petition so explained, 
it is thought, would be a direct violation of the 
precept which our Lord gives at the close of the 
chapter, vi. 34 p,r) ovv /jLepi/jLvijeijTe et<? rrjv avpiov 1 . 
To this I would reply first; that though eTriovcra is 
most frequently a synonym for 77 avpiov, yet the 
words are not coextensive in meaning. If the prayer 
were said in the evening, no doubt rj eTriovaa would 
be ' the following day, the morrow ' ; but supposing it 
to be used at or before dawn, the word would designate 
the day then breaking. Thus in the Ecclesiazusae 
of Aristophanes one of the speakers, after describing 
the time (ver. 20) xaiToi 777)09 opdpovy' e&riv ''tis close 
on daybreak,' exclaims (ver. 105) ^77 TTJV itriovcrav 
rjfjbipav, where rrjv avpiov would be quite out of place. 
This instance shows the different power of the two 
words, which in some aspects may be said to contrast 
with each other ; for the one implies time approaching 
and the other time deferred. But secondly (and this 
seems to be a complete answer to the objection), this 
argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. If 

1 It is astonishing to see with what persistence this worthless argu- 
ment is repeated. I find it for instance in two of the most recent Theo- 
logical books which have come into my hands, written from directly 
opposite points of view, Delitzsch Brief an die Romer in das Hebraische 
iibersetzt p. 27 (1870) and Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara n. p. 279 


the command /-wj fiepipvdv is tantamount to a prohibi- 
tion against prayer for the object about which we are 
forbidden to be anxious, then not only must we not 
pray for to-morrow's food, but we must not pray for 
food at all. For He, who says (ver. 34) fj,rj ^epi^vrj- 
t? TYJV avpiov, says also (ver. 25) fj,rj ^epi^vare rfj 
vpa>v TI <f>dyr)T6 ; and on this showing, whatever 
interpretation we put upon eVtoucrioi/, a precept will 
be violated. The fact is, that, as fiepi/juva means 
anxiety, undue thought or care (see above, p. 190 sq.), 
prayer to God is not only consistent with the absence 
of /jLepifiva, but is a means of driving it away. One 
Apostle tells us (i Pet. v. 7) to 'cast all our anxiety 
(pepiiiva) on God, for He careth (auro> /-teXet) for us.' 
Another directs us 'not to be anxious about any 
matter (/juij^ev ^epi^vare) but in every thing with 
prayer and supplication joined with thanksgiving to 
make our desires known unto God (Phil. iv. 6).' These 
injunctions we fulfil when we use the petition in the 
Lord's Prayer in a proper spirit. At the same time, 
even in our prayers we are directed specially to the 
needs of ' the coming day,' for in the very act of asking 
for distant material blessings there is danger of exciting 
in ourselves this ^epi^va which it is our duty to crush 1 . 

1 The moral bearing of this petition is well put by S. Basil (Reg. 
brev. tract, cclii, II. p. 500), though he wrongly interprets the word 
itself; 6 epyafo/uevos fAvrj/jLovevuv TOV Kvpiov X^-yojros MTJ rrj 

IS 2 


On the other hand, if eiriovcnov be derived from 
ITTL, ova-la, we have the choice between the two senses 
of ovala, (i) 'subsistence,' and (2) 'essence, being.' 
Of these the latter must be rejected at once. It 
is highly improbable that a term of transcendental 
philosophy should have been chosen, and a strange 
compound invented for insertion in a prayer intended 
for everyday use. Indeed nothing could well be con- 
ceived more alien to the simplicity of the Gospel- 
teaching, than such an expression as eVtouo^o?, meaning 
'suited to' or 'conducive to the ova-la, the essential 
being.' If therefore this derivation from ova- la is ten- 
able at all, we must be prepared to assign to it the 
more homely meaning, ' subsistence,' so that eTrtova-ios 
will be ' sufficient to sustain us/ ' enough for our 
absolute wants, but not enough for luxury.' Such a 
sense in itself would meet the requirements of the 
passage. Only it does not seem likely that a strange 
word, which arrives at this meaning in an indirect way, 
should have been invented to express a very simple 
idea for which the Greek language had already more 
than one equivalent. Nor indeed is it a natural sense 
for the word to bear. In Porphyr. Isag. 16, and 
elsewhere, eirova-Lw^ is used to signify accidental^ 

ri <j)ayijT $ rl TrLijT..,T6v tirtotiffiov dprov, 
rrjv <j>i?)iJ.epov faty rrj ovalq. y/J-uv xp^Mei'OJ'Ta, ovx eavry 
dXXd T( 0e< ^rvyxdvei Trepl TOVTOV, K.T.\. 


as opposed to essential, denoting what is superadded 
to the ovcrta-, and if such a compound as eVtouoYo? 
(from ova- la) were possible, it ought to have a similar 

3. TJte tenor of tradition. 

Hitherto we have seen no sufficient reason for 
abandoning the derivation from Uvai, while on the 
other hand serious difficulties are encountered by 
adopting the alternative and deriving the word from 
dvai. It remains to enquire how far this result is 
borne out by tradition. 

Tholuck, discussing the two derivations of eVtou- 
o-fco?, from elvat, and Ikvai respectively, states, 'The 
oldest and most widely spread is the former': and 
Suicer, mentioning the derivation from f) eTnovcra, 
adds, 'Nemo ex veteribus ita explicat.' I hope to 
show that such statements are the very reverse of 
the truth; that, so far as our evidence goes, the 
derivation from levat is decidedly the more ancient; 
and that, though the other prevailed widely among 
Greek interpreters after Origen, yet it never covered 
so wide an area as its elder rival. I shall take the 
great divisions of the Church as distinguished by their 
several languages, and investigate the traditional sense 
assigned to the word in each. 


I. In the Greek Church the first testimony is 
that of ORIGEN (de Orat. 27, 1. c.). He himself derives 
the word from ovo-ta, adducing Trepiovcrios as an 
analogy. This analogy, as we have already seen, is 
false : for, whereas eVl loses the final vowel in com- 
position, Trepl retains it; so that while the one com- 
pound would be Trepiovcrios, the other would be 
eVouo-to?. Thus derived, the word signifies according 
to Origen TOV et? rrjv ovo-lav ijfjLwv a-v/jLf3a\\6/jLevov 
apTov. It is the spiritual bread which nourishes the 
spiritual being, 6 Ty (jtvaei, TTJ \oyi/cfj /caTa\\7]\6raro^ 
KOI Ty ovaia avTy (rvyyevrjs /e.r.X. This view Origen 
supports by quoting other passages where the heavenly 
bread is mentioned, and at the close of the discussion 
he adds (p. 249 c) ; ' Some one will say that eiriovo-iov 
is formed [1. KaTecr^fjiaTiaOai] from linevai ; so that 
we are bidden to ask for the bread which belongs to 
the future life (TOV olnelov TOV yaeXXo^ro? alwvos), that 
God may anticipate and give it to us even now, so 
that what shall be given as it were to-morrow 
may be given us to-day (OOCTTC TO olovel avpiov 
SoOrjcrofjievov vrjuepov rifilv SoOfjvcu) ; the future life 
being represented by to-morrow^ and the present by 
to-day: but the former acceptation is better in my 
judgment, etc.' Thus the earliest notice among Greek- 
speaking Christians reveals a conflict between the two 
derivations. It is true that in either case Origen 


contemplates a spiritual rather than a literal interpre- 
tation of the bread, but this fact accords with the 
general principles of the Alexandrian school from 
which the notice emanates ; for this school is given to 
importing a mystical sense into the simple language 
of the Gospel. This ulterior question does not affect 
the derivation of the word. 

So far as I am acquainted with the language of 
Origen elsewhere, his mode of speaking here is quite 
consistent with the supposition that he himself first 
started the derivation from elvai, ovaia. At all events 
this supposition accords with his fondness for im- 
porting a reference to ' absolute being ' into the lan- 
guage of the Apostles and Evangelists elsewhere, as 
for instance when he interprets TO<? dyiois TO?? ovcriv 
(omitting the words ev 'E$eVa>) in Ephes. i. i, and iva 
ra OVTCL /carapyrjo-rj in I Cor. i. 28, in this sense (see 
Cramer's Catena on Ephes. 1. c.). A derivation which 
transferred the word fVtouo-to? at once from the 
domain of the material to the domain of the supra- 
sensual would have a strong attraction for Origen's 
mind. Still it must remain a pure hypothesis that he 
himself invented this derivation. He may have got it 
from one of his predecessors, Pantaenus or Clement : 
but at all events it bears the impress of the Alexan- 
drian school. On the other hand his own language 
shows that the other etymology (from eirievai) had its 


supporters. How few or how numerous they were, 
the vagueness of his expression will not allow us to 
speculate. It is only when we come to the Versions 
that we find solid ground for assuming that in the 
earliest age this was the prevailing view. 

The next Greek writer whose opinion is known 
was also an Alexandrian. The great ATHANASIUS 
(de Incarn. 16, I. p. 706) derives the word from 
7rievat y but gives it a theological meaning : ' Elsewhere 
He calls the Holy Spirit heavenly bread, saying, Give 
us this day TOP aprov *5//,&>z/ TOV eiriova-Lov 1 , for He 
taught us in His prayer to ask in the present life for 
TOV eTriovo-lov aprov, that is the future, whereof we 
have the first-fruits in the present life, partaking of it 
through 2 the flesh of the Lord, as He Himself said, 
The bread, which I shall give, is My flesh, etc.' This is 
exactly the account of the word which Origen rejects. 

To those however, who have studied the early his- 
tory of Biblical interpretation, it will be no surprise to 
find that Origen's explanation of this word exerted 
a very wide and lasting influence. It is a common 

1 The Benedictine editor translates tiriovo-iov here by supersubstan- 
tialem after Jerome, though the context of S. Athanasius is directly 
against this. At the same time Athanasius arrives at the same mystical 
meaning of rbv aprov rbv tiriovviov as Jerome, though through a different 

' 2 5i<i is absent from some texts but seems to be correct. If it is 
omitted the sense will be 'partaking of the flesh.' 


phenomenon to find nearly all the Greek expositors 
following him, even in cases where his interpretation 
is almost demonstrably wrong. If his explanations 
had the good fortune to be adopted by the Antiochene 
school, as was frequently the case, they passed un- 
challenged and established themselves in the Church 
at large. In this particular instance the procedure of 
the Antiochene school would appear to have been 
characteristic, both in its agreement with and in its 
departure from Origen. While accepting his deri- 
vation, they seem to have substituted a realistic for 
his mystical sense of dpros eVtouo-to?. The adjective 
thus explained becomes ' for our material subsistence/ 
and not ' for our spiritual being/ 

The views of the earliest representatives of the 
Antiochene school on this point are not recorded. 
But they may perhaps be assumed not only from 
the general tenor of later interpretations in this 
school (from Chrysostom downward) but also from 
the opinions of the Cappadocian fathers. 

In the treatise of GREGORY NYSSEN, de Orat. 
Domin. iv, I. p. 745, this view is stated very expli- 
citly : ' We are ordered,' he says, ' to ask for what 
is sufficient for the preservation of our bodily sub- 
sistence (TO 7T/309 TT)V o-vvrijprjcriv 7-779 (TOt/tarifttyf 
ov<r t a?).' The same interpretation is adopted by 
his brother BASIL (Reg. brev. tract, cclii, II. p. 500), 


who explains rov emovcriov aprov as that 'which is 
serviceable for our daily life for our subsistence (rov 
777305 rrjv <f)r)ppov farjv rfi over la tf/jiwv xprjatpevovra).' 
The same derivation, though not quite the same 
meaning, is assigned to it also by CYRIL OF JERU- 
SALEM, Catech. xxiii (Mystag. v). 15, p. 329; 'This 
holy bread is eVioucrio?, being appointed for the sub- 
sistence (or substance) of the soul (eVt rrjv ovo-lav 
rfjs ifrvxr)? tcararao-cro/jLevos). This bread does not go 
into the belly nor is it cast out into the draught, 
but is distributed into the whole of thy complex 
frame (efc rrda-av aov rrjv avcrracriv dvaBloorai) for the 
benefit of body and soul'; where an application chiefly 
though not exclusively spiritual is given to ovo-ia. 
Again, S. CHRYSOSTOM, de Aug. Port. etc. 5*, III. 
p. 35, interprets eTriovaiov 'which passes to the sub- 
stance of the body (eVt rrjv ova" lav rov crew'/taro? 
SiajBaivovTa) and is able to compact (<rv<yKpoTrj<rai) 
this'; but elsewhere, in his Homily on S. John (xliii. 
2, VIII. p. 257) he explains TOV aprov rov eTriovcriov, 
rovreo-n, rov icaOr) pep LVOV ; while on S. Matthew, 
where the passage itself occurs, he expresses himself 
in such a vague way, as if he were purposely evading 
a difficulty (xix. 5, VII. p. 25 1 sq.), rl ecm rov aprov 
rov emoixriov ; rov ^>rifj.epov...Olrat, \rj <f>vo-is] rpo(f>r)<; 

1 It is right to mention that the authorship of this Homily has been 
questioned ; see the preface in Montfaucon's edition. 


7779 dvaytcaias...v7Tp aprov /JLOVOV Ke\ev<re TTJV 
7roiio~0at,, teal vTrep aprov TOV e^rjpepov, ware fir) virep 
T^9 avpiov fiepi/JLvdv Sia TOVTO Trpoo-edrj/ce, TOV apTov 
TOV eiriova-tov, TOVTZQ-TI,, TOV <j)rjfju6pov' ical ovoe TOVTW 
rfpfcea-Orj TO> prjfjiaTt, d\\d /cal T6pov /JLCTO, TOVTO jrpocr- 

60rjKV, eiTTCOV, So? TJIUV (TTJfiepOV' (WC7T6 fJLr) 7T6paiTepa> 

crvvTpijBeiv eaurou? Trj (frpovTiSi, r^? eTriovcrr)? ^/i-epa?, 
where he shelters himself under the vagueness of 
efyrifiepos without explaining how he arrives at this 
meaning, and where the somewhat ambiguous words 
' not to afflict ourselves further with the thought of 
the coming (eVtouo-???) day ' seem to allow, if not to 
suggest, the derivation from eVtoucra. In a later 
passage of the same Homilies (Iv. 5, p. 562) and in 
his Exposition of Psalm cxxvii (V. p. 364) he again 
quotes this petition, but avoids an explanation; in 
his Homilies on Genesis (liv. 5, IV. p. 530 sq.) he 
adduces it as setting the proper limits to our desire 
for temporal goods, TOI^ apTov rj^wv TOV eTnovcriov So? 
THUV crrifj(,pov, OLVT\ TOV, TT}V TT?? tfflipOS Tpocfrrjv ; while 
on Philippians iv. 19 {Horn. xv. 4, XL p. 316), com- 
menting on the words 7r\r)poocrt, Tracrav ^peiav V/JLWV, 
he adds ' so as not to be in want but to have what 
is needful (rd TT/JO? ^peiav\ for Christ also put this 
in His prayer, when teaching us, TOV dprov jfjuwv 
TOV 67TLou(7Lov So? ^fjilv (rrjfjLepov.' Thus he seems 
throughout to be wavering between the meanings 


daily and necessary, i.e. between the derivations from 
levai and elvau, though he tends towards the latter. 
Again THEODORET on Phil. iv. 19, following Chry- 
sostom, quotes this petition as warranting S. Paul in 
asking for his converts rrjv Kara rov irapovra ftlov 

Somewhat later CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA on Luke 
xi. 3 (Mat, II. p. 266) thus comments on eTnovai,ov\ 
1 Some say that it is that which shall come and shall 
be given in the future life; ...... but if this were 

true ...... why do they add, Give us day by dayl For 

one may see likewise by these words that they 
make their petition for daily food ; and we must 
understand by eTnovcnov what is sufficient (rov av- 
rapKrf) etc. 1 ' 

Later Greek writers contented themselves with 
repeating one or more of the interpretations given by 
their predecessors. Thus DAMASCENE (Orthod. Fid. 
iv. 13, I. p. 272 Lequien) says, ovros 6 apros eo-rlv 
7? dTrap'xfi rov /zeXXoz/ro? aprov, 05 ecrriv 6 CTriovcrios' 
TO jap eiriovo-iov 8r)\ot fj rov fj,e\\ovra, rovrean, rov 
rov /xeXXoz/T09 alcovos, rj rov TT/OO? avvr^prjo-Lv rrjs 
ova-las THIWV \a/jL/3av6/j,evov ; and THEOPHYLACT (on 
Luke xi. 3) explains it rov eVt rfj ovcria rjfMwv KOLI rfj 
Gv<rrao-ei rfjs f&)^5 a-viiftaXkofJLevov, ov rov ireptrrov 

1 In Glaphyr. in Exod. ii, I. p. 286, ed. Auberti, he explains this 
petition as equivalent to asking for rd eJs 


d\\d TOV dvay/calov (see also on Matt. vi. 

2. From the Aramaic Christians, the testimony 
in favour of the derivation from eirievat, is stronger. 

We learn from S. Jerome (in Matth. vi. n, VII. 
p. 34), that in the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE 
HEBREWS the word eTriova-iov, which he translated 
' supersubstantialem,' was rendered by Mahar (1H23), 
* quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus, Panem nostrum 
crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie? 

Whatever view be adopted of the origin of this 
Apocryphal Gospel, its evidence has the highest value 
in this particular instance. Of its great antiquity no 
question can be entertained. It can hardly have 
been written much later than the close of the first 
century. It was regarded as an authoritative docu- 
ment by the Judaizing Christians of Palestine. It 
adhered very closely to the Gospel of S. Matthew, 
and was even thought by some to be the Hebrew 
(i.e. Aramaic) original of this Gospel; though the 
variations are too considerable to admit this simple 
solution. On the whole we may conclude with 
high probability that its traditions were not derived 
through the Greek but came from some Aramaic 
source or sources whether from an oral Gospel, or 

1 A number of different interpretations are huddled together by an 
anonymous writer in Origen, Op. I. p. 910 (ed. Delarue). 


from written notes put together for catechetical pur- 
poses, or from the Aramaic copy of S. Matthew's 
Gospel altered to suit the purposes of the writer. 
But even if it were derived from our Greek Gospels, 
its interpretation of etrwvo-iov would still have the 
greatest weight as proceeding from Palestine at this 
very early date. In a familiar expression in the 
most familiar of all the Evangelical records it is 
not unreasonable to assume that the tradition would 
be preserved at the close of the Apostolic age un- 
impaired in the vernacular language of our Lord and 
His disciples 1 . 

From the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we 
turn to another Aramaic source, emanating from a 
different quarter, the CURETONIAN SYRIAC Version 
of the New Testament. 

In Matt. vi. n, this version has: 

.sen ndsacun 

' And-our-bread continual of-the-day give-to-us.' 
In Luke xi. 3 : 

.-ncul^.i rdA-i^K' r<J*gi.u\ ^X .acnet 
' And-give to-us the-bread continual of-e very-day.* 

1 It is unnecessary here to discuss the question to what extent Greek 
was spoken in Palestine at the Christian era. Even if with Dr. Roberts, 
in his instructive work Discussions on the Gospels, we take the view 
that the Palestinian Jews were bi- lingual, the argument in the text will 
still hold good. 


Here the temporal sense 'continual,' given to 
, connects it with eTrievcu, whether through 
eTriovaa, 'for the coming day/ and so 'daily, con- 
stant/ or more directly, ' ever coming/ and so ' per- 
petual' 1 . 

When however we turn from the Curetonian to 
the later revision, the PESHITO SYRIAC, we find that 
the influence of the Greek interpreters has been at 
work meanwhile. The word 'necessary' is substituted 
for 'constant/ the qualitative sense for the temporal, 
i. e. the derivation from elvat, for the derivation from 

In Matt. vi. n of this Version, the petition runs, 
.KLlSftCU {JLnJCUto.i r^*giu\ ^ .acn 

' Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity this-day.' 
In Luke xi. 3 : 

.^ucul^ ^LoJCUto.i ndsajjA ^ .=>cn 
' Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity every-day.' 

This is only one of the many instances where the 
Peshito betrays the influences of the fourth century 
whether in the text or in the interpretation 2 . 

1 Cureton compares Num. iv. 7 TDnn DH7, translated in the 
Syriac ta r^LlASfc K* T<L**1u.V His own speculations respect- 
ing the original reading in S. Matthew seem both unnecessary and 

2 Prof. Wright informs me that he has not found any variation in 


In the still later HARCLEAN VERSION (A.D. 6 1 6) 
again this same interpretation is adopted in both 
passages, though slightly varied in form. 

In Matt. vi. 1 1 : 


'The-bread of- us that necessary give to-us this-day.' 
In Luke xi. 3 : 

' The-bread of-necessity of-us give to-us this-day : ' 
with a v. 1. KLsaa* A^ra.t ocn (i.e. TO KCL& rjpepav) 
for KliSWCU ((rrjfj,pov). 

Again, the JERUSALEM SYRIAC, which was per- 
haps translated from a Greek Lectionary, and can 
hardly be earlier than the 5th century, also appears 
to derive eTrioixrios from elvai, ova-ia, but gives it a 
different sense, apparently confusing it with 

, as S. Jerome does. 

In Matt. vi. 1 1 it has, 

'Our-bread of-opulence (or 'abundance') give to-us 
this-day,' (l. p. 234, ed. Miniscalchi-Erizzo). The 
corresponding passage in S. Luke is not extant 
in this Version. 

the earliest MSS of the Peshito in the British Museum, belonging to 
the 5th, 6th, and yth centuries. 


Thus among the Aramaic Christians the earliest 
tradition, which has reached us by two distinct 
channels, connects the word with iinkvai : while in the 
later Versions, after the influence of the Greek inter- 
preters had made itself felt, this traditional sense has 
been displaced by the derivation from ova La. 

It will be seen hereafter how the later rendering 
substituted by S. Jerome failed to suppress the tra- 
ditional quotidianum o*f the Old Latin. In the same 
way the r^ii *9ir^ of the Old (Curetonian) Syriac, 
though it does not show equal vitality, occurs occa- 
sionally and still survives long after the later Revi- 
sion of the New Testament, which we call the Peshito, 
had superseded the earlier Version or Versions. Thus 
in the Syriac recension of the Acts of Thomas which 
must be a very ancient work, for it has a distinctly 
Gnostic character the Lord's Prayer is quoted to- 
wards the end, and the petition in question runs 

closely following this Version 1 . Again, in one of the 
poems of Jacob of Sarug, who died A.D. 521 (Zin- 
gerle's Monumenta Syriaca p. 31, Innsbruck 1869), it 

1 These Acts are found in a British Museum MS, Add. 14, 645, and 
have been recently edited by Prof. Wright, in his Apocryphal Acts of 
the Apostles, 1871. The text of the Lord's Prayer in these Acts agrees 
generally with the Curetonian Version as against the Peshito. 

L. R. 16 


is said of the patriarch Jacob (see Gen. xxviii. 20) 
that he 'prayed the prayer which our Lord taught. 

..A .= 00 KLsaCU.I KllA^rt K* KlSa-uA 

The-bread continual of-the-day give to-me.' 
And lower down he again repeats the characteristic 

This rendering of TOV dprov rov eTriovcrtov is found 
also in an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer by the 
same writer, preserved in the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 17, 
157 (dated A.G. 876 = A.D. 565), in which the expres- 
sion is repeated not less than three times, fol. 48 a, 
49 a\ 

1 This passage was pointed out to me by Mr Bensly of the Cambridge 
University Library. I had also hoped that I might find this petition 
quoted in the works of one of the earlier Syriac writers, Aphraates 
or Ephrem, but my search has not been attended with success. An 
indirect reference in Ephrem (Op. vi. p. 642) omits the word in question. 


' The bread of the day shall suffice thee, as thou hast learnt in the 
Prayer.' At the same time Ephrem agrees with the Curetonian against 
the Peshito in f^^CVflj so that it seems probable he used the Cure- 
tonian Version. Prof. Wright at my request examined several Syriac 
Service-books in the British Museum Library. He reports that all the 
volumes which he examined are Jacobite, and that ' the reading invari- 
ably agrees with the Peshito text of Matt. vi. n. They belong to 
the Qth, loth, and nth centuries.' 

2 These references were communicated to me by Prof. Wright. 


3. The testimony of the Egyptian Versions again 
is highly valuable, both as preserving a very ancient 
tradition (for it would seem that they must both be 
assigned to the close of the second or beginning of 
the third century), and as representing a distinct and 
isolated section of the Church. 

The MEMPHITIC, the version of Lower Egypt, and 
the THEBAIC, the version of Upper Egypt, agree in 
the derivation from Ikvai ; and their agreement is the 
more valuable, inasmuch as their general character 
shows them to be independent the one of the other. 
The Memphitic Version has: 
In Matt. vi. 1 1 : 

neNooiK NTepACTi MHiq NAN M(t>ooY. 
'Our bread of-to-morrow give-it to-us to-day/ 
In Luke xi. 3 : 

'Our bread that-cometh give-it to-us daily/ 
The Thebaic Version : 
In Matt. vi. 1 1 : 

neNoeiK GTNHY Npri MMoq NAN Mrrooy. 
'Our bread that-cometh give-thou it to us to-day/ 
The corresponding passage of S. Luke in this Version 
is not preserved. 

Here we have a choice of two translations, both 
founded on the same derivation, the one through 
, the other directly from eirievai. 



In all the Coptic (i.e. Memphitic) Service-books 
which I have seen, the rendering of eiriova-iov is NirepACTi, 
'of to-morrow/ 

4. The Latin Churches preserve a still more an- 
cient tradition. The OLD LATIN Version, which 
dates certainly from the second century, and not 
improbably, so far as regards the Gospels, from the 
first half of the century, renders liriovaiov by quoti- 
dianum in both Evangelists. Of this rendering there 
can be no doubt. It is found in the extant manu- 
scripts of the Old Latin Version in both places. It is 
quoted moreover by the early Latin Fathers, Ter- 
tullian (de Orat. 6) and Cyprian (de Orat. p. 104, 
Fell). Though both these fathers are commenting 
especially on the Lord's Prayer, and both adopt a 
spiritual sense of the petition, as referring to Christ 
the living bread and to the eucharistic feast, yet they 
comment on 'quotidianum' from this point of view, 
and seem to be unaware that any other rendering is 

At length in the fourth century the influence of 
the scholastic interpretation, put forward by Origen 
and the Greek Fathers, makes itself felt in Latin 
writers. The first semblance of any such influence 
is found in Juvencus, the Latin poet, who wrote a 
metrical history of the Gospel about A.D. 330 335. 
He renders the words 


Vitalisque hodie sancti substantia panis 
Proveniat nobis. 

Evang. Hist. i. 631. 

Here however, though the coincidence is curious, 
no inference can safely be drawn from the occurrence 
of 'substantia' ; since Juvencus elsewhere uses the 
word with a genitive as a convenient periphrasis to 
eke out his metre, without any special significance; 
e.g. i. 415, 'substantia panis' (Matt. iv. 4); i. 510, 
'salis substantia' (Matt. v. 13); ii. 420, 'vocis sub- 
stantia' (Matt. ix. 32); ii. 524, 'animae substantia' 
(Matt. xi. 5); ii. 677, 'credendi substantia' (John v. 
38) ; iii. 668, 'arboris substantia' (Matt. xxi. 21). 

In VlCTORINUS the Rhetorician, who was ac- 
quainted with the Greek commentators, the first dis- 
tinct traces of this interpretation in the Latin Church 
are found. In his treatise against Arius, completed 
about the year 365, he writes (i. 31, Bibl. Vet. Patr. 
VIII. p. 163, ed. Galland.): 'Unde deductum eTriova-iov 
quam a substantia. ? Da panem nobis ITTIOIXTLOV hodi- 
ernum. Quoniam Jesus vita est, et corpus ipsius vita 
est, corpus autem panis... Significat eTriovcriov ex ipsa 
aut in ipsa substantia, hoc est, vitae panem/ And 
again (ii. 8, ib. p. 177): ' liriovaiov aprov, ex eadem 
ova-la panem, id est, de vita Dei, consubstantialem 
vitam...Graecum igitur Evangelium habet eTriovcriov, 
quod denominatum est a substantia, et utique Dei 


substantial hoc Latini vel non intelligentes vel non 
valentes exprimere non potuerunt dicere, et tantum- 
modo quotidianum posuerunt, non eTriovcnov.' Setting 
himself to defend the O/MOOVO-IOV of the Nicene creed 
against the charge of novelty, Victorinus seizes with 
avidity a derivation of eTriova-iov which furnishes him 
with a sort of precedent. 

Again, in S. AMBROSE we find distinct references 
to this derivation. In a treatise ascribed to this 
father (de Sacram. v. 4. 24, II. p. 378) we read, 
'Quare ergo in oratione dominica, quae postea sequi- 
tur, ait Panem nostrum ? Paaem quidem sed einov- 
(7iov, hoc est, super sub stantialem. Non iste panis est 
qui vadit in corpus ; sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui 
animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. Ideo Graece CTTIOV- 
aws dicitur : Latinus autem hunc panem quotidianum 
dixit [quern Graeci dicunt advenientem~\ l ; quia Graeci 
dicunt rrjv ITTIOVGCLV rjfjuepav advenientem diem. Ergo 
quod Latinus dixit et quod Graecus, utrumque utile 
videtur. Graecus utrumque uno sermone significavit, 
Latinus quotidianum dixit. Si quotidianus est panis, 
cur post annum ilium sumis, quemadmodum Graeci 
in oriente facere consuerunt ? Accipe quotidie, quod 
quotidie tibi prosit etc.' The writer seems here to 
combine the two derivations of eTTLovcriov, as though 

1 The words in brackets are omitted in many MSS, and seem to be 
out of place. 


the word could have a double etymology. At least 
I cannot interpret 'Graecus utrumque uno sermone 
significavit' in any other way 1 . The authorship of the 
treatise however is open to question, as it contains 
some suspicious statements and expressions. But 
whoever may have been the writer, the work appears 
to be early. If he owed the expression super sub- 
stantialis to S. Jerome's revision, as was probably 
the case, even this is consistent with the Ambrosian 
authorship, as several of this father's works were 
written after S. Jerome had completed the Gospels. 

Again, in an unquestioned treatise of S. Ambrose 
(de Fide iii. 15. 127, n. p. 519) written in the years 
377, 378, this father, defending the word OJJLOOVO-LOV 
against the Arians, uses the same argument as Victo- 
rinus: 'An negare possunt ova-Lav lectam, cum et 
panem ITTLOVCTLOV Dominus dixerit et Moyses scrip- 
serit vjJLeis eaeade /JLOI, \aos irepiovcnos ? Aut quid est 
ova-la, vel unde dicta, nisi ovo~a aet, quod semper 
maneat ? Qui enim est, et est semper, Deus est ; et 
ideo manens semper ovaa dicitur divina substantia. 
Propterea eVtovcrto? panis, quod ex verbi substantia 
substantiam virtutis manentis cordi et animae sub- 
ministret ; scriptum est enim, Et panis confirmat cor 

1 Pfeiffer in the Thesaur. Theol. Philol. II. p. 117 (Amstel. 1702) 
explains 'utrumque uno sermone significavit' by 'crastinum scil. di- 
cendo, hodiernum includens diem,' which seems to me meaningless. 


hominis (Ps. ciii. 15).' The etymological views of a 
writer who derives ova-La from ovo-a del can have no 
value in themselves. The notice is only important 
as showing that the derivation from ova-la was gaining 
ground. At the same time, like the passage of Victo- 
rinus, it suggests a motive which would induce many 
to accept the etymology offered, as furnishing a ready 
answer to an Arian objection. 

When S. JEROME (about A.D. 383) revised the 
Latin of the New Testament, he substituted super- 
substantialem for quotidianum in the text of S. 
Matthew ; but, either prevented by scruples from 
erasing a cherished expression from the Latin Bibles, 
or feeling some misgiving about the correctness of his 
own rendering, he allowed quotidianum to stand in 
S. Luke. Altogether his language is vague and un- 
decided, whenever he has occasion to mention the 
word. In his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 
(Op. VII. p. 726), written about A.D. 387, he thus ex- 
presses himself: 'Unde et illud, quod in evangelio 
secundum Latinos interpretes scriptum est Panem 
nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie> melius in Graeco 
habetur Panem nostrum eTriovaiov, id est praecipuum^ 
egregium, peculiarem 1 , eum videlicet qui de caelo de- 

1 It thus appears that the sense which S. Jerome himself attaches 
to his rendering supersubstantiakm is different from that which some 
theologians have assigned to it. 


scendens ait (Job. vi. 51), Ego sum panis qui de caelo 
descendi. Absit quippe ut nos, qui in crastinum cogi- 
tare prohibemur, de pane isto qui post paululum con- 
coquendus et abjiciendus est in secessum in prece 
dominica rogare jubeamur. Nee multum differt inter 
iiriovviov et Trepiovcriov, praepositio enim tantummodo 
est mutata, non verbum. Quidam eTrtovaiov existi- 
mant in oratione dominica panem dictum, quod 
super omnes ova-las sit, hoc est super universas sub- 
stantias. Quod si accipitur, non multum ab eo sensu 
differt quern exposuimus. Quidquid enim egregium 
est et praecipuum, extra omnia est et super omnia.' 
And similarly in his Commentary on S. Matthew 
(Op. VII. p. 34), written a few years afterwards (A.D. 
398) : 'Quod nos super sub stantialem expressimus, in 
Graeco habetur eTriovo-iov, quod verbum Septuaginta 
interpretes Trepiov<riov frequentissime transferunt...... 

Possumus supersubstantialem panem et aliter intel- 
legere, qui super omnes substantias sit et universas 
superet creaturas. Alii simpliciter putant, secundum 
Apostoli sermonem dicentis Habentes victum et ve- 
stitum his contenti simus, de praesenti tantum cibo 
sanctos curam agere.' Hitherto he is apparently 
consistent with himself in connecting the word with 
ovcria ; but in a later work, the Commentary on 
Ezekiel (Op. V. p. 209), written from A.D. 411414, 
he says, ' Melius est ut intelligamus panem justi eum 


esse qui dicit, Ego sum panis mvus qui de caelo de- 
scendi, et quern in Oratione nobis tribui deprecamur, 
Panem nostrum substantivum, sive superventurum, da 
nobis, ut quern postea semper accepturi sumus, in prae- 
senti saeculo quotidie mereamur accipere.' And in a 
still later work against the Pelagians, written about 
A.D. 415, he speaks with the same uncertainty (iii. 15, 
II. p. 800) ; ' Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in 
corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater 
noster, etc.... Panem quotidianum, sive super omnes sub- 
stantias, venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint 
assumtione corporis Christi.' In one point only is he 
consistent throughout. He insists on a spiritual, as 
opposed to a literal, interpretation of the bread. 

The indecision or the scruple or the carelessness, 
which led Jerome to retain quotidianum in one Evan- 
gelist while he removed it from another, bore strange 
fruit. Jerome's revised Latin Version became the 
Bible of the Western Churches. The knowledge of 
the Greek tongue died out. The fact that the same 
word iTTLova-iov occurs in both Gospels passed out 
of memory. The difference which was found in the 
Latin Vulgate came to be regarded as a difference in 
the language of the Evangelists themselves. As such it 
is commented upon by the most learned Latin writers 
in successive ages. So it is treated even by his own 
younger contemporary Cassianus who, though him- 


self not ignorant of Greek, yet in a treatise written 
soon after the death of S. Jerome writes (Collat. 
ix. 21), ' Panem nostrum CTTIOVO-IOV, id est, super- 
substantialem, da nobis hodie : quod alius evangelista 
quoiidianum! So again it is taken by Anselm in the 
nth or 1 2th century (Comm. in Matth^by Nicolas 
of Lyra in the I4th (Comm. in Mattk.), and by Diony- 
sius Carthusianus in the I5th (Enarr. in Mattk.) 1 \ 
all of whom remark on the different epithets used by 
S. Matthew and S. Luke. 

But the most remarkable instance of this blunder 
is furnished by a controversy between the two fore- 
most men of their time, S. Bernard and Abelard. 
The Abbot of Clairvaux, having occasion to visit the 
convent of the Paraclete of which Heloise was abbess, 
observed that in repeating the Lord's Prayer at the 
daily hours a change was made in the usual form, the 
word 'supersubstantialem' being substituted for 'quo- 
tidianum.' As Heloise had made this change under the 
direction of Abelard, she communicated the complaint 
to him. Upon this he wrote a letter of defence to S. 
Bernard, which is extant (P. Abaelardi Opera I. p. 618, 
ed. Cousin). He pleads that the form in S. Matthew 
must be more authentic than the form in S. Luke 
the former having been an Apostle and heard the 
words as uttered, the latter having derived his infor- 

1 See Pfeiffer 1. c. p. 119 sq. 


mation at second hand 'de ipso fonte Matthaeus, 
de rivulo fontis Lucas est potatus.' Hence S. Mat- 
thew's form is more complete and contains seven 
petitions, while S. Luke's has only five. For this 
reason the Church in her offices has rightly preferred 
S. Matthew's form to S. Luke's. 'What may have 
been the reason therefore,' he proceeds, 'that while 
we retain the rest of S. Matthew's words, we change 
one only, saying quotidianutn for supersubstantialem\ 

1 We may pardon the mistake of Abelard more readily, when we find 
that a learned modern historian, commenting on the incident, is guilty 
of a still greater error. Milman (History of Latin Christianity ill. 
p. 262, ed. 2) remarks on this dispute: 'The question was the clause in 
the Lord's prayer our daily bread or our bread day by day.' Here two 
wholly different things are confused together, (i) S. Matthew and 
S. Luke alike have tmov<riov. This was rendered quotidianum in both 
Evangelists in the Old Latin, as it is rendered daily in both in our 
English Version. But Jerome by substituting supersubstantialem in 
S. Matthew and retaining quotidianum in S. Luke made an artificial 
variation, which misled Abelard. Meanwhile the quotidianum of the 
Old Latin in S. Matthew maintained its place in the Service-books, 
and puzzled Abelard by its presence. Abelard's remarks are confined 
solely to the epithet attached to dprov. (2) There is a real difference 
between S. Matthew and S. Luke in another part of the sentence, the 
former having a-fj/j.epov this day, the latter r6 /ca0' rtptpav day by day. 
This distinction was obliterated by the Old Latin, which took the 
false reading a-fiimepov in S. Luke and so gave hodie in both Evangelists. 
It reappears again in the original Vulgate of Jerome, which has hodie 
in S. Matthew and cotidie in S. Luke (though once more obliterated in 
the Clementine recension). Of this difference Dean Milman seems to 
have had some not very clear idea and to have confused it with the 
dispute about tiriovviov, but Abelard does not mention it at all. 


let him state who can, if indeed it is sufficient to 
state it. For the word qtwtidianum does not seem 
to express the excellence of this bread, like super- 
sub stantialem ; and it seems to be an act of no slight 
presumption to correct the words of an Apostle, and 
to make up one prayer out of two Evangelists, in 
such a manner that neither seems to be sufficient in 
respect of it (the prayer), and to recite it in a form 
in which it was neither spoken by the Lord nor 
written by any of the Evangelists. Especially when 
in all other portions of their writings which are read 
in Church, their words are kept separate, however 
much they may differ in respect of completeness or 
incompleteness (impermixta sunt verba eorum, qua- 
cunque perfectione vel imperfectione discrepent). 
Therefore, if any one blames me for innovating in 
this matter, let him consider whether blame is not 
rather due to the person who presumed out of two 
prayers written in old times to make up one new 
prayer, which deserves rather to be called his own 
than an Evangelist's (non tarn evangelicam quam 
suam dicendam). Lastly, the discernment of the 
Greeks, whose authority (as S. Ambrose saith) is 
greater, hath, owing to the aforesaid reasons, as I 
suppose, brought the prayer of S. Matthew alone into 
common use, saying, rbv aprov rj/Aoov rov eTriova-iov, 
which is translated Panem nostrtim supersubstantialc.m! 


Strange it is, that, though quoting the Greek words 
of S. Matthew (apparently however at second hand), 
Abelard did not take the trouble to consult the ori- 
ginal of S. Luke, but here, as elsewhere 1 , allowed 
himself to follow the Vulgate implicitly. Strange too, 
but less strange, that he should not have recognised in 
the quotidianum of the Church Services the remnant 
of an older Version, which in this instance Jerome's 
Revision had been powerless to displace. We do not 
hear that S. Bernard refuted his pertinacious adver- 
sary by exposing his error. It is improbable that 
he possessed the learning necessary for this purpose, 
for in learning at least he was no match for his 
brilliant opponent. He probably fell back on the 
usage of the Church, and refused to cross weapons 
with so formidable an adversary. 

Yet, notwithstanding such notices as these, the 
marvel is that Jerome's super sub stantialis took so little 
hold upon the Latin Church at large. When after 

1 Abelard uses similar language elsewhere, In Dieb. Rogat. Serm. 
Op. I. p. 471; 'Non sine admiratione videtur accipiendum quod apud 
nos in consuetudinem ecclesiae venerit ut quum orationem dominicam 
in verbis Matthaei frequentemus, qui earn, ut dictum est, perfectius 
scripserit, unum ejus verbum caeteris omnibus retentis commutemus, 
pro supersubstantialem scilicet, quod ipse posuit, dicentes quotidianum, 
sicut Lucas ait, etc.' On the other hand in the Expositio Orationis 
Dominicae (i. p. 599 sq.) he comments on quotidianum and does not 
even mention supersubstantialem. 


some generations his revised Vulgate superseded 
the Old Latin, the word confronted students of the 
Bible in S. Matthew, and in this position it was com- 
mented upon and discussed. But here its influence 
ended. S. Augustine on the morrow of Jerome's 
Revision still continues to quote and to explain the 
petition with the word quotidianum, as S. Hilary 1 had 
quoted and explained it on the eve. Despite the great 
name of Jerome, whose authority reigned paramount 
in Western Christendom for many centuries in all 
matters of Scriptural interpretation, quotidianum was 
never displaced in the Lord's Prayer as used in the 
offices of the Church. Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, 
and Mozarabic Liturgies, all retained it. The word 
supersubstantialem is not, so far as I can learn, once 
substituted for quotidianum in any public services of 
the Latin Church 2 . The use which Abelard intro- 
duced at the Paraclete was obviously isolated and 
exceptional and appears to have been promptly sup- 
pressed. The devotional instinct of the Church would 
seem to have been repelled by a scholastic term so 
little in harmony with our Lord's mode of speaking 
and so ill adapted to religious worship. Even in the 

1 Fragm. Op. n. p. 714. 

3 It has been pointed out to me that the words 'panem nostrum 
quotidianum supersubstantialem' occur in the Breviary in the Oratio- 
num Actio post Missam, the two epithets being combined ; but this is 
only an indirect reference to the Lord's Prayer. 


Catechismus ad Parochos, issued by the Council of 
Trent as a manual for the guidance of the Roman 
Clergy and containing a very 'full exposition of the 
Lord's Prayer, the word quotidianum is retained, while 
the alternative supersubstantialem is not once men- 
tioned, though an eucharistic application is given to 
the petition, and the epithet quotidianum explained 
in accordance therewith 1 . 

The pre-reformation versions of the Lord's Prayer 
in the languages of Western Europe, being derived 
from the Latin, naturally follow the rendering which 
the translator in each case had before him. If taken 
from the Old Latin or from the Service-books, they 
give daily, if from the Vulgate, super substantial. 
Among a large number of versions and paraphrases 
of the Lord's Prayer in the various Teutonic dialects 2 
the latter rendering occurs very rarely, and then (for 
the most part) only in situ in the Gospel of S. Mat- 

1 It is worthy of notice, as showing how little favour this rendering 
found, that a Roman Catholic commentator of the 1 6th century, 
Maldonatus (on Matth. vi. n), supposes that Jerome never intended to 
place supersubstantialem in the text, and that it got there by careless- 
ness : ' Hieronymus supersubstantialem vertit, quamquam in eo veterem 
versionem noluit corrigere. Itaque incaute quidam nostro tempore in 
vulgata editione pro quotidiano supersubstantialem posuerunt.' This 
view is quite groundless. 

2 See the collection in Marsh's Origin and History of the English 
Language^ p. 76 sq. : and also The Gospel of S. Matthew in Anglo- 
Saxon and Northumbrian Versions (Cambr. 1858). 


thew, as e.g. ' ofer-wistlic ' in the Lindisfarne Gospels 
and ' over other substaunce ' in Wycliffe. 

The early reformers also for the most part adopted 
the familiar rendering. In Luther's Version it is in- 
terpreted ' unser taglich brodt,' and Calvin also advo- 
cates the derivation from eViez/at. So too it is taken in 
the Latin of Leo Juda. Our own Tyndale rendered it 
in the same way, and in all the subsequent English 
Versions of the reformed Church this rendering is 
retained. On the other hand, the derivation from 
ova-la was adopted by Beza 1 , whose interpretation 
however in this particular instance does not appear 
to have influenced the reformed Versions 2 . 

To sum up the results of this investigation into 
the testimony of the most ancient Versions. The 
Syrian, the Egyptian, the Latin Churches, are dis- 
tinct from one another. Yet all alike bear witness in 
the earliest forms of the Lord's Prayer to the one 
derivation of eTriovcriov as against the other. In the 
Syrian Churches we have testimony from two distinct 

1 Indeed he himself, though he explains the word ' qui nostris viribus 
sustentandis sufficiat,' yet retains quotidianum in the text, saying 'Mihi 
religio fuit quicquam immutare in hac precationis formula in ecclesia 
Dei tanto jam tempore usurpata.' 

2 In Tomson's Version of the N. T. however, which is attached to 
the Geneva Bible, though it is rendered 'dayly,' a marginal note is 
added 'That that is meete for our nature for our dayly foode, or such 
as may suffice our nature and complexion.' 

L. R. 17 


sources. The Egyptian Churches likewise tell the 
same tale with a twofold utterance. All may be re- 
garded as prior to Origen, the first Greek father who 
discusses the meaning of the word. In the Syrian 
and the Latin Churches we have seen how at a later 
date the scholastic interpretation was superposed upon 
the traditional, but with different success. In the 
former it ultimately prevailed ; in the latter it never 
obtained more than a precarious footing. The Egyp- 
tian Churches, being more effectually isolated from 
Greek influences, preserved the traditional sense to 
the end. 

These Versions alone have any traditional value. 
But others, which were made in the fourth century 
and later, are not without their importance, as show- 
ing how widely the older interpretation still prevailed 
in the Greek Church, notwithstanding the tendency 
in the Greek fathers towards the derivation adopted 
or invented by Origen. It is a remarkable fact that 
all the remaining Versions which can with probability 
be assigned to the fourth or fifth centuries give the 
temporal sense to eTnova-iov, or (in other words) derive 
it from eTrievai. In the GOTHIC, whose date is about 
the middle of the fourth century, it is rendered by. 
sinteinan, 'continual'; in the ARMENIAN, which was 
made some time before the middle of the fifth, being 
begun from the Syriac and afterwards revised and 


completed from the Greek, it is likewise translated 
'continual, daily'; and similarly in the ^THIOPIC, 
whose date is somewhat uncertain, it is given ' of 
each day' in both S. Matthew and S. Luke. 

Thus, tradition is not only not adverse to the deri- 
vation which etymological considerations seem to re- 
quire, but favours it very decidedly. With this strong 
confirmation, we need not hesitate to adopt it. On 
the other hand, it is only fair to notice that, though 
tradition is in accordance with itself and with ety- 
mology so far as regards the derivation from eirievai, 
yet the same degree of coincidence cannot be claimed 
on behalf of the derivation from the feminine eTriovcra 
and the more precise meaning for the coming day thus 
obtained. Yet this meaning seems to be supported 
by the oldest tradition, and to offer a better justifica- 
tion of the coinage of a new word. At the same 
time, when the word was once in use, it would require 
a conscious effort of the mind to separate two ety- 
mologies so intimately connected, and the close 
alliance of meaning, for the coming day and for tJte 
coming time, would encourage a certain vagueness of 
conception within these narrow limits. It was only 
when the meaning was stereotyped by translation 
into another language, that it would assume definitely 
the one or the other of these two allied senses. 

Thus the familiar rendering 'daily/ which has 



prevailed uninterruptedly in the Western Church 
from the beginning, is a fairly adequate representa- 
tion of the original ; nor indeed does the English 
language furnish any one word which would answer 
the purpose so well. 


The word einovo-ios was connected, as we have 
seen, by several of the fathers with irepLova-io^. I 
hope that sufficient reasons have been given already 
for rejecting this connexion as based on a false ana- 
logy. But still the word Trepiovcno? is important in 
itself, and (as its meaning has been somewhat misun- 
derstood by modern as well as by ancient commen- 
tators) I take this opportunity of explaining what 
seems to be its proper force. 

Origen (de Orat. 27, i. p. 246), in the passage of 
which I have already quoted the context (p. 217 sq.), 
distinguishes these two words eTriova-ios, Treptovcrto?, as 
follows : TI fjiev rov et9 rrjv ovcriav crvfji/3a\\6fjLvov aprov 
$rj\ovcra, y Se rov rrepl rrjv ovo~lav /carayivopevov \aov 
KOI KOIVCOVOVVTO, avra). With this brief account of the 
word he contents himself. Apparently he understands 
Trepiovvios to mean * connected with and participating 
in absolute being,' thus assigning to it a sense closely 


allied to that which he has given to eVtoucrto?. This 
meaning may be dismissed at once. It does not 
correspond with the original Hebrew, and it is an 
impossible sense to attach to the word itself. Never- 
theless it is taken up by Victorinus, who writes (c. 
Arium i. 31, Bibl. Vet. Pair. VIII. p. 163 ed. Galland.) 
' Sic rursus et Paullus in Epistola ad Titum populum 
Trepiovo-lov, circa substantiam, hoc est circa vitam 
consistentem populum'; and again (ii. 8, ib. p. 177), 
* Latinus cum non intelligent irepiovo-iov ox\ov, Trepi- 
ovciov, TOV TrepiovTCL [read Trepl ovra ?] id est, circa 
vitam quam Christus et habet et dat, posuit populum 
abundantem! And Cyril of Alexandria on S. Luke 
(Mai, II. p. 266), in the context of a passage already 
quoted (p. 236), likewise connects it with eV^ovcrto?, 
giving it an equally impossible sense, dvrl TOV eV*- 
ovcrlov TOV TrepioixTiov elTratv, TOVT(TTI TOV dp/covvTa KOL 
TOV TeX,to)5 e%eti/ ou% yTTw/Aevov. 

On the other hand, Jerome (on Tit. ii. 14, VII. 
p. 725 sq.) says that, having thought much over the 
word irepLovo-Lov and consulted 'the wise of this world' 
whether they had met with it elsewhere, without get- 
ting any satisfaction, he betook him to the passages 
in the Old Testament where it occurs, and by a com- 
parison of these arrived at the meaning egregium, 
praecipuum, peculiarem, a sense which (as we have 
seen) he gives to eVtouo-toi/ also. Though wholly 


wrong as applied to eTriovcriov, this meaning is fairly 
adequate to represent 7repiov<riov ; but it is clear from 
the context that Jerome does not seize the exact 
force of the word, which appears also to have escaped 
later commentators. 

We may reasonably infer from the notices of 
Origen and Jerome that this word was unknown out 
of Biblical Greek : and we have therefore no choice 
but to follow the method of the latter, and investigate 
the passages of the Old Testament where it occurs. 

The expression Xao? irepiovcrios is found four times 
in the LXX ; Exod. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, 
xxvi. 1 8. In the first passage it is a rendering of 
the single word irpJD, in the three last of iT?JD Dtf. 
Moreover in Ps. cxxxiv (cxxxv). 4 ift^lp^ is trans- 
lated 6/9 irepiovaiaa'^bv eaurep. In all these passages 
the reference is to the Israelites as the peculiar 
people of God. Once more, in Eccles. ii. 8 we have 
<7vvr)yay6v poi fcaiye dpyvpiov /caiye ^pvo-lov ical irepi- 
/3acri\ea)v /cal TWV ^a>pc5z/, where again 
represents n?3p, but in this instance 
without any reference to the chosen people. These 
appear to be the only passages in the LXX where 
Trepiovffios, Trepiovo-iao-fio^, occur. But H x^D is found 
besides in two other places: in Mai. iii. 17, where 
again it refers to the chosen people and where it is 


rendered et? irepiiroiricrw, and in I Chron. xxix. 3, 
where Solomon says ' I have a Pi ?3D [translated in 
our Version ' of mine own proper good '] gold and 
silver which I have given to the house of my God, 
over and above all that I have prepared for the holy 
house,' rendered by the LXX e'er poi o irepLTreTroir^jLat, 
Xpva-Lov Kal dpyvpiov K.T.\. 

Of these two renderings which the LXX offers 
for n?3p, the one is adopted by S. Paul, Tit. ii. 14 
Xao? irepiovvw, the other by S. Peter, I Pet. ii. 9 
Xao? et? Trepmolria-iv. The reference in S. Peter is to 
Exod. xix. 5, where however the rendering irepLova-ios 
is found in the LXX. 

The Hebrew root 7-HD, from which H /3D comes, is 
not found in the Bible. But the senses of kindred 
roots in Hebrew, such as *)3D, and of other derivatives 
of this same root in the allied languages, point to its 
meaning. It signifies ' to surround on all sides/ and 
so to ' gather together, set apart, reserve, appro- 

In grammar the Rabbinical expression for a proper 
name is PPUD Dt^. In logic the predicable proprium 
is designated P1/Y3D by them. 

Applied to property, the word JlSHD would denote 
the private treasure which a person acquires for 
himself or possesses by himself alone, as distinguished 


from that which he shares with others. Of a king, 
we might say that it was the * fiscus ' as distinguished 
from the 'aerarium/ the privy purse as opposed to 
the public treasury. It is something reserved for 
his private uses. In two of the passages where it 
occurs, Eccles. ii. 8, I Chron. xxix. 3, it refers to 
kings ; and in the latter it seems to be carefully dis- 
tinguished from the money which would naturally be 
devoted to expenditure on public works. 

Thus there is no great difficulty about the original 
Hebrew word. On the other hand it is less easy to 
see how the same idea can be represented by the 
Greek Trepiovcnos. Jerome speaks as though the 
leading notion of the word were ' superiority,' derived 
from TrepLeivai, in the sense 'to excel.' Obviously this 
meaning would not correspond to the original. 

We arrive at a more just conception of its force 
by considering a synonyme which Jerome himself 
points out This same Hebrew word, which in the 
LXX is given Treptovo-iov^ was rendered by Symma- 
chus egaiperov (Hieron. Op. VI. pp. 34, 726). Jerome 
indeed is satisfied with translating egalperov by prae- 
cipuum or egregium ; but its meaning is much more 
precise and forcible. It was used especially of the 
portion which was set apart as the share of the king 
or general, before the rest of the spoils were distributed 
by lot or otherwise to the soldiers of the victorious 


army. The exemption from the common mode of 
apportionment in favour of rank or virtue is the lead- 
ing idea of the word. Thus in Plutarch, Vit. Cor. 10, 
we are told that when Coriolanus, as a reward for his 
bravery, was asked to select from the spoils ten of 
every kind before the distribution to the rest (efeXe- 
(rdai Se/ca iravra TT/OO rov vepew rofc aXXot?), he declined 
to do so, saying that he would take his chance with 
the others, but he added, e^alperov piav aiTov^ai^dpiv, 
1 1 have one favour to ask, as an exceptional boon' In 
the triumphant anticipation of Sisera's mother, ' Have 
they not divided the prey ? to every man [lit. to the 
head of a man] a damsel or two, to Sisera a prey of 
divers colours, etc./ we have the idea which a Greek 
poet might express by egalperov Sewp^a (e.g. ^Esch. 
Bum. 380, comp. Agam. 927), the special treasure as- 
signed to the captain over and above the distribution 
which was made to the rest counted by heads. This 
sense of l^alperov is too common to need further illus- 
tration ; and I cannot doubt that Symmachus selected 
it on this account as an appropriate word to express 
the idea of the original. The leading idea is not 
superiority, as Jerome seems to imagine, but exception. 
'Egregium,' strictly interpreted, might represent it, 
but not ' praecipuum.' It is the 'exsortem ducere 
honorem ' of Virgil. This idea fitly expresses the 
relations of Jehovah to Israel, whom in the language 


of the Old Testament elsewhere He retained under 
His special care (see the notes on Clem. Rom. 29). 

The same conception seems to be involved in 
Treptovaios. This word may have been invented by 
the LXX translators, or it may have had some local 
currency in their age : but, if the latter was the case, 
the fact was unknown to Origen and Jerome, for 
they speak of irepiovcrios as not occurring out of the 
Bible. In either case, it might be derived from 
TrepLtov, on the analogy of e/covo-tos, eQeXovcrios, etc., 
or from ov&la, like evovaios, dvoixnos, etc. (see above, 
p. 222, 223). Thus its meaning would be either 'exist- 
ing over and above/ or * possessed over and above'; 
and the same idea of exception from the common 
laws of distribution would be involved as in egaiperos. 

S. Jerome mentions also 1 that in another passage 
Symmachus had adopted the Latin word peculiarem, 
as a rendering of PP3D. He doubtless ventured on 
this bold expedient because the Greek language did 

1 Hieron. Op. vi. p. 34 'licet in quodam loco peculiare interpretatus 
sit'; ib. vi. p. 726 'in alio volumine Latino sermone utens peculiarem 
interpretatus est.' Different interpretations of this second passage have 
been given; but, compared with the first, it can only mean that 'in 
another book of Scripture Symmachus adopted a Latin expression, 
translating the word by peculiarem ' ; just in the same way as Ignatius 
writing in Greek uses deytprup, 5e7r6<rira, afc/ceTrra (Polyc. 6), because 
the Greek language did not supply such convenient terms to express 
his meaning. It is extremely improbable that Symmachus wrote any 
work in Latin as some have supposed. 


not furnish so exact an equivalent as peculium : for 
egaiperov, adequate as it is in some respects, intro- 
duces the new idea of division of spoils, which is want- 
ing in the original. On the other hand the Latin 
peculium, being used to denote the private purse which 
a member of the family, whether slave or free, was 
allowed in particular cases to possess and accumulate 
for his own use, distinct from the property which the 
paterfamilias administered for the good of the whole, 
approached very closely to the meaning of the He- 
brew: and moreover there was a convenient adjective 
peculiaris derived therefrom. Impressed, it would ap- 
pear, with the value of the word which he had thus 
learnt from Symmachus, Jerome himself has almost 
universally adopted peculium, peculiaris, as a rendering 
of H^D in the Old Testament; e.g. Exod. xix. 5 
' Eritis mihi in peculium de cunctis populis,' I Chron. 
xxix. 3 ' Quae obtuli in domum Dei mei de peculio} 
Deut. xxvi. 1 8 (comp. vii. 6, xiv. 2) 'Elegit te hodie 
ut sis ei populus peculiaris,' etc. 1 

Our English translators in adopting this word 
' peculiar ' after the Vulgate were obviously aware of 
its appropriate technical sense. This appears from 
the mode in which they use it ; e.g. Ps. cxxxv. 4 

1 The normal rendering in the Old Latin (which was translated from 
the LXX) was abundans: see e. g. Exod. xix. 5, Tit. ii. 14, and the quo- 
tation of Victorinus given above (p. 245 sq.). This would be a very natural 
interpretation of Tre/uotfcrios to any one unacquainted with the Hebrew. 


'The Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself and Israel 
for his peculiar treasure ' (comp. Exod. xix. 5, Eccles. 
ii. 8, in both which passages the word 'treasure' is 
added). Twice only have they departed from the 
word 'peculiar' in rendering PPUD ; in Deut. vii. 6, 
where it is translated ' a special people,' and in Mai. 
iii. 17, where it is represented by 'jewels' but with a 
marginal alternative, * special treasure.' In this last 
passage the rendering should probably be, ' And they 
shall be to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, in the day 
which I appoint, for a peculiar treasure,' and not as 
our Version has it, 'And they shall be mine, saith 
the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my 
jewels.' In Tit. ii. 14 \ao<; irepiovcrios, and I Pet. ii. g 
Xao? efc Trepnrolrjcriv, where (as I have already observed) 
we have two distinct Greek renderings of the same 
Hebrew, the expressions are once more united in our 
Version, which, following Tyndale, translates both by 
'a peculiar people.' Strangely enough S. Jerome, 
who introduces peculium, peculiaris, in the Old Testa- 
ment, has other and diverse renderings in both these 
passages of the New ; populus acceptabilis in the one 
case, and populus adquisitionis in the other. His New 
Testament was executed before his Old : and it would 
appear that in the interval he had recognised the 
value of the rendering suggested by Symmachus, and 
adopted it accordingly. 

The Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer. 

(Reprinted from the 'Guardian' of Sept. lth t i^th, and list, 1881.) 

THE Revisers of the English Version of the New 
Testament have no reason to complain of the recep- 
tion which has been accorded to their work. Re- 
membering the storm of criticism which burst upon 
the revision of King James, they were prepared for 
censure and rebuke. The present 'Authorised ' Version, 
when it appeared, was fiercely assailed. It was con- 
victed (in the opinion of its censors) of faults of all 
kinds of bad scholarship, bad theology, bad faith, 
even bad English. The Victorian Revisers had no 
right to expect a better fate. Speaking for myself, 
I freely confess that I have been surprised, not at the 
severity, but at the gentleness, of the criticisms which 
our work has called forth. I thankfully acknowledge 
the frank welcome which it has received in many 
quarters ; while I was more than prepared for the 


stern condemnation which has been pronounced up- 
on it in some others. Considering the facilities for 
fragmentary criticism, often anonymous, which are 
afforded by the newspapers and periodicals of the 
present day, the Revisers may well congratulate 
themselves that the scourge has fallen so lightly 
upon them. 

Of all the alterations which the Revisers have 
felt themselves constrained to make, none has at- 
tracted more attention, or provoked more censure, 
than the change in the last petition of the Lord's 
Prayer. This adverse criticism has been gathered up 
in 'A Protest' from the pen of Canon Cook, of Exeter, 
addressed to the Bishop of London, which (it may be 
presumed) states with sufficient fulness the case of the 
complainants, and to which therefore I shall make 
frequent allusion in the following pages. 

But let me first clear the ground. This is strictly 
a question of fidelity. Canon Cook, at the outset, 
speaks of the 'extreme surprise and grief which the 
rendering of the Revisers has caused to himself. He 
feels certain that no change likely to have been 
adopted by them, 'could be proposed which would 
produce a more general and lively feeling of astonish- 
ment and pain' (p. i) 1 . He returns again to the 

1 1 have quoted throughout from the second edition of Canon Cook's 


subject towards the close of his pamphlet (p. 17), 
and characterises the rendering as 'one which will 
excite feelings of pain and repugnance in millions of 
devout and trustful hearts.' Now, I trust that the 
Revisers have not been callous or indifferent to the 
feelings of the general reader ; but there was a cause 
which they held more sacred even than the sentiments 
of their fellow-Christians. This was the cause of 
truth. We should have failed in our first duty before 
God and man, if from any regard for men's feelings 
we had withheld a rendering which, using the best 
reason that God has given us, we believed in our 
heart of hearts to be decidedly the most probable 
rendering. If translators are not truthful, they are 
nothing at all. I am surprised therefore, in the 
adverse criticisms which this rendering has called 
forth, to find that so much stress is laid on the shock 
which it will cause to the feelings of the Christian 
reader. Nor can I believe this shock to be so great 
as our censors suppose. We have not imported any 
new doctrine into the Lord's Prayer, but that which 
we have received from the beginning. Were we not 
taught as children in our Catechism that in this 
petition we desire the Lord God our heavenly Father 
'that He will keep us' not only 'from all sin and 
wickedness/ but also 'from our ghostly enemy'? 
But ' it is not necessary.' No, it is not necessary 


in the sense in which a mathematical truth is neces- 
sary. No result of criticism, and (I may add) no 
inference in morals, is necessary in this sense. If 
we were to wait for this kind of certainty before 
accepting the inferences of reason and experience, 
no progress would be possible. Mankind would never 
have emerged from barbarism, had this principle 
prevailed. If however it appeared to the Revisers, 
exercising their faculties to the best of their ability, 
that there was a decided preponderance of argument 
in favour of this particular rendering, then I say, as 
honest and truthful men, they had no choice but to 
give it the precedence and place it in the text. I 
shall endeavour in the following pages to give the 
reasons which influenced one of their number. At 
the same time I wish it to be understood that I am 
speaking only for myself, and that I have neither 
right nor desire to stand forward as the representative 
of my colleagues. It is clear however from the result, 
that two-thirds of those present arrived at the same 
goal, whether they reached it by the same or by a 
different route. 

Having said thus much by way of preface, I will 
proceed at once to the discussion of the text itself: 

Matt. vi. 13, prj ela-evey/cys ^a? et's Tret/oao-^oi/, 
a\\a pvaai rfpas a?ro rov Trovrjpov. 

The arguments which deserve to be considered in 


deciding between the masculine and neuter rendering 
of rov Trovrjpov, may be ranged under four heads: 
(i) The diction of the clause itself; (2) The require- 
ments of the context ; (3) Early exegesis ; (4) Theo- 
logical propriety. 


Under this head Canon Cook spends some time 
in showing that both the preposition (OTTO) and the 
verb (pveo-Oai) are consistent with the neuter rendering. 
I agree with him. 

As regards the preposition, the most that can be 
urged is that airo more naturally suggests a person ; 
but the argument is too slender to carry any weight. 
On the difference between etc and diro, as used with 
this same verb pvea-Oai, Canon Cook says truly, 'There 
appears to be a real distinction, e/c implying that the 
petitioner is actually under the power of an enemy or 
principle ' (p. 4). I shall have occasion to advert to 
this distinction at a later stage, as Canon Cook him- 
self appears to have overlooked it in his subsequent 

Of the verb pveaOai he writes, 

' This is a point of considerable importance, since, as it is 
said, the alteration of the Revisers is defended to a considerable 
extent on the ground that pvaai necessarily implies deliverance 
from a person.' 

L. R. 18 


I do not know to what he alludes. My memory 
is treacherous, but I cannot recall any incident which 
supports this view of the considerations which influ- 
enced the Revisers. Certainly I myself should not 
think of urging such an argument in favour of the 
masculine rendering. 

The stress of the argument from diction rests on 
the use of 6 irovrjpo^ and TO irovrjpov ; and under this 
head the itsage of the New Testament writers them- 
selves must hold the foremost place. What this usage 
is will be seen from the following passages. 

(i) Passages where it is certainly, or almost cer- 
tainly, masculine, signifying 'the Evil One:' 

Matt. xiii. 19 e/>%erai 6 irovqpb^ KOI dpird^et TO 


Matt. xiii. 38, 39 ra e fy%dvid elaiv ol viol TOV 
trovrjpov, 6 be e^pos 6 aTrelpas avrd eo~Tt,v 6 SidftoXos. 

Ephes. vi. 16 irdvra rd j3e\r) TOV Trovrjpov [ra] 
TreTTVpa/jLeva aftkcrai. 

I John ii. 13, 14 <m vevitctj/care TOV Trovrjpov . . /cal 
vevucrj/caTe TOV irovrjpov. 

I John iii. 12 ov tcaBco^ Katz/ IK TOV Trovrjpov rjv. 

I John v. 1 8 6 7rovr)po<$ ov% aTrrerai avTOV. 

I John V. 19 6 KOCTfJLOS 0\05 6V TO) TTOVTJpq) KlTai. 

(ii) Passages where it is neuter : 
Luke vi. 45 o dyaOos dv6pa)7ro<; e/c TOV dyaOov 
Oijo-avpov TTJS tcapSlas avTov Trpo^epet, TO djadov, teal 


o Trowrjpos \av6ptoTro<i\ c/c rov Trovrjpov [Orjcavpov rfj? 
ttapSlas avrov] Trpotyepei, TO Trovrjpov. 

Rom. xii. 9 diroo-Twyovvres TO Trovrjpov. 

(iii) Passages where the meaning is doubtful or 
doubted : 

Matt. v. 37 TO &e TTpia-o~ov TOVTCOV IK rov Trovrjpov 

Matt. v. 39 eyco Se \eyco vfitv /IT) dvTKnfjvai TW 


John xvii. 15 OVK epcoTw iva aprj<s avrovs e/c TOU 
KOO-/JLOV a\X' iva T^prjar)^ avrov? etc rov Trovrjpov. 
2 Thess. iii. 2, 3 /a pva-Ow/juev a?ro rwv droirayv /cal 

dv0pa)7TQ)V, . . TTiO-TO? 6 ea-TLV 6 Ku/3i09, 05 

vfjids KOI <f>v\dj;ei OTTO ToO Trovrjpov. 

A few remarks on each of these lists will be 

(i) In the first list I have included Matthew xiii. 
38, because, notwithstanding Canon Cook's comments, 
I cannot consider the interpretation really doubtful. 
He himself says : 

' It is perhaps unnecessary to question the propriety of this 
rendering [' the Evil One '] in which the Revisers accept the old 
Version ['the Wicked One'] with a slight modification. The 
use of the masculine is justified, and will probably commend 
itself to most readers, as it is accepted by the generality of 
commentators, ancient and modern (p. 7).' 

It is always dangerous to risk a sweeping negative ; 
but I do not remember a single Greek commentator 

18 2 


who takes it otherwise than masculine. On the other 
hand, in some revisions of the Old Latin Version, as 
Canon Cook has pointed out, we have filii nequitiae 
&s\&filii nequam ; but this is probably not the original 
form of this version, as I hope to show lower down. 
However this may be, there is a serious linguistic 
objection to the neuter here. We can understand ol 
viol T?9 Trovqpias, but is ol viol rov Trowrjpov possible ? 
Canon Cook, writing of the LXX, says (p. 8), ' TO 
TTovypov, in the sense of evil, moral and spiritual evil, 
is one of the commonest forms. It occurs, e.g., eight 
times in Deuteronomy, and repeatedly in the historical 
books.' Yes ; but though the occurrence of TO irovrjpov 
is so frequent in the LXX, it is not once used as an 
equivalent to q Trovrjpla. It never denotes the abstract 
quality, but always the concrete embodiment, 'the 
deed or thing which is evil.' This sense, I need not 
say, is quite out of place in the expression ol viol TOV 

One other passage in this list is disputed by 
Canon Cook. He considers that in I John v. 19, 
6 #607^09 0X09 eV TO> Trovijpw fceiTcu, the neuter is 
preferable. I cannot agree with him. In the first 
place, the masculine is distinctly suggested by the 
previous 6 Trovypos ov% aTTTerai avTov. Secondly, the 
masculine is required in eV TV Trovrjpa) /celrai,, as the 
proper antithesis to eV/iei/ eV rw akyOww, ez> TO> vla> 


avrov 'Irjo-ov Xpicrra), in the following verse. Thirdly, 
this interpretation is in entire accordance with the 
language and teaching of S. John elsewhere, where 
'the world' is regarded as the domain of the Evil 
One. Fourthly, Canon Cook's interpretation would 
seem to require rfj Trovypia rather than rw Trovijpa). 
Lastly, the traditional exegesis favours the masculine. 
Here again I doubt whether a single Greek Father 
can be produced who adopts the neuter rendering, 
for in the passage of Dionysius of Alexandria (ed. 
Migne, pp. 1594, 1599), to which Canon Cook refers 
(p. 8) as favouring his view, the frequent reference to 
the Evil One (6 77-01/77/90$) in the context seems clearly 
to show that this Father adopted the masculine ren- 
dering here also. Nor again is he justified in saying 
that * the neuter is certainly supported by ' the Mem- 
phitic version, pi-pet-hoou. The expression is ambi- 
guous in itself (as I shall have occasion to show 
presently), being both masculine and neuter; and 
the fact that in the previous verse (o TTOZ/^O? ov% 
uTnerai avrov) the translator has adopted the Greek 
word itself, piponeros, proves nothing. Such variations 
between the native Egyptian and the naturalised 
Greek word in rendering the same original even in 
the same context are not uncommon in this version, 
(ii) As regards the second list, I need only 
remark that I Thess. v. 22, airb iravros et'Sov? Trovrjpov 


, is not included, because the difficulty of 
treating Trowrjpov as a substantive is great. 

(iii) (a) Of the doubtful passages, Matt. v. 39, 
/j,r) dvTUTTrjvcu ro5 Trovrjpa) a\X* ocrrt? ere pairL^ei /e.r.X, 
may conveniently be taken first. Here r&> vrovypw 
should probably be rendered ' the evil man/ as in the 
Revised Version, since this is suggested by the words 
following, a\V ocms K.T.\. If so, this passage should 
be eliminated altogether from the list. 

(b) In Matt. v. 37, TO Se Trepio-aov TOVTCDV etc TOV 
Trovrjpov ea-riv, the Revisers have adopted the mas- 
culine rendering 'the Evil One' in the text, giving 
the neuter 'evil' in the margin. They have done 
rightly in my opinion. The masculine rendering is 
suggested by I John iii. 12, Kalv ex TOV irovypov ?jv, 
where it is certainly masculine, not to mention the 
analogous phrase e/c TOV SiafioXov elvai (John viii. 44, 
I John iii. 8). Moreover here also (though in this 
case the argument is not so strong) we should have 
expected T^? Trowrjpias, rather than TOV irovypov, if 
1 evil ' had been meant. To the masculine rendering 
however Canon Cook has a theological objection, 
which he expresses as follows (p. 6): 

* The statement that every oath, especially every oath used 
to confirm an asseveration, owes its existence to moral evil in 
man, is in full accordance with our experience and with the 
teaching of Holy Scripture. But for the mutual distrust be- 
tween man and man it would never have been thought of ; and 


when employed needlessly, lightly, irreverently, it involves 
serious guiltiness. But on solemn occasions, when it would 
otherwise be impossible to distinguish between thoughtless 
utterances and serious declarations, or when needed to convey 
full assurance to a timid conscience or distrustful heart, an 
oath is more than justifiable ; it comes not from the Evil One 
but from the goodness of the utterer.' 

The answer to this is twofold. 

First. If any act or thing ' owes its existence to 
moral evil in man,' it may be said to owe its existence 
to the author of evil. 

Secondly. Such oaths as are lawful lie altogether 
outside the letter of this passage. It is prefaced with 
the injunction, ' Swear not at all.' Clearly therefore 
the passage, however we may interpret it, refers to 
oaths which are forbidden, and does not contemplate 
such cases as Canon Cook adduces. The injunction, 
'Let your speech be Yea, yea, Nay, nay/ and the 
reason assigned, ' Whatsoever is more than these/ etc., 
must be coextensive with the prohibition, ' Swear not 
at all.' Wrong swearing therefore is intended ; and 
wrong swearing is confessedly the prompting of the 
Evil One. 

(c) In John xvii. 15, OVK ep(oru> iva apy? CLVTOVS IK 
TOV ic6(r/j,ov a\V 'iva TT)pi]a"r)$ avTOvs e/e TOV Trovrjpov, 
I cannot myself doubt that TOV Trovrjpov is ' the Evil 
One,' though I have placed the passage in the doubt- 
ful list. The remark which has been made already 


with respect to the Epistles of S. John holds good of 
his Gospel. The World and the Gospel are antago- 
nistic the one to the other. Satan is 'the prince of 
this world.' In this particular case therefore, where 
the disciples are contemplated as remaining in the 
world, we naturally expect that the prayer should 
take the form of exemption from the power of the 
tyrant who claims the world for his principality. 
This interpretation becomes the more probable when 
we remember that, whereas TO Trovypov, 'the evil 
thing/' is never found in S. John's writings, 6 TTO^/JO?, 
' the Evil One,' occurs many times. 

(d) The only remaining passage, 2 Thess. iii. 3, 
<f\afet diro rov irovrjpov, may be placed in the same 
category with the last petition of the Lord's Prayer, 
to which it is closely allied. Being open to the same 
ambiguity, it contributes nothing to the solution of the 

Thus then it appears that 6 Trovypos, 'the Evil 
One,' is a common expression in the New Testament, 
and that it occurs three or four times as often as TO 
irovrjpov ' the evil thing.' 

As an evidence of the hold which this term had 
taken on the Christian mind in the first ages of the 
Church, we find it in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 2, Iva 
fj,rj 6 Trovrjpos 7rapela"Bvaiv 7r\dvrjs Tro^cra? eV TIJMV 
K.T.X.), which, though most probably not the work of 


the Apostle whose name it bears, is one of the earliest, 
perhaps the very earliest, of patristic writings. 

Where the usage of the New Testament writers 
is thus explicit, it would seem superfluous to seek any 
justification of this sense from without. Canon Cook 
however thinks otherwise. * He turns to the Septua- 
gint and to the Targums for a response to the question 
how the expression could naturally be understood by 
our Lord's hearers, and this is his inference (p. 8) : 

'The answer given by the Septuagint is clear; and, as in 
other cases of doubtful interpretation, I hold that it should be 
regarded as conclusive. 

The italics are my own. After a brief statement 
of some facts relating to the use of the neuter in the 
LXX, he continues : 

'The masculine o jrovrjpos is used, as is also its Hebrew 
equivalent, to designate a wicked man, when an individual is 
pointed out; but it is never used in the Septuagint to designate 
the ' Evil One.' It certainly would not occur to any one fami- 
liar with the language of the Septuagint, to interpret the word 
as equivalent to Satan; nor is it at all probable that in a 
Gospel written specially for the use of Hebrew Christians 
the words roG Trovrjpov would be employed in any other sense 
than that generally, I may say universally, accepted by readers 
of that Version.' 

To these inferences I can only reply by an appeal 
to facts. It certainly did occur to the Greek Fathers, 
who before all others were ' familiar with the language 


of the Septuagint/ to interpret the words in this way. 
Indeed there is not, so far as I am aware, any evidence 
to show that a single Greek Father, for many centuries 
after the words were spoken by our Lord and recorded 
by the Evangelist, interpreted them otherwise. Again, 
with regard to the improbability that the words TOV 
TTovrjpov should be used of Satan in a Gospel written 
specially for Hebrew Christians, I must reply that 
the general consensus of interpreters and theologians, 
ancient and modern, agrees in assuming that it is so 
used in another passage (Matt. xiii. 38 ol viol TOV 
Trovrjpov), and I am unable to understand wherein 
lies the a priori improbability in the genitive occur- 
ring in this sense, when the nominative certainly is 
so used (Matt. xiii. 19, ep^erai, 6 770^77/905). 

But when Canon Cook regards the ' answer given 
by the Septuagint ' as ' conclusive/ has he considered 
the conditions of the problem ? Has he taken into 
account the date of the Septuagint ? Has he further 
asked what opportunity the Septuagint translators 
had for introducing 6 irowrjpos in this sense ? 

The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament 
was made two or three centuries before the Gospels 
were written. This interval was a period of constant 
and rapid development. Theological nomenclature 
moved forward with the movement of the ages. 
Terms wholly unknown at the beginning of this 


period were in everybody's mouth at the end. A 
modern parallel may help us to appreciate the force 
of this consideration. Who would attempt to restrict 
the interpretation of philosophical and scientific terms 
current in the Victorian era by the diction of the 
Elizabethan ? The fact therefore if fact it were 
that this designation of Satan was unknown to the 
Jews in the age of the earlier Ptolemies, would not 
afford even a presumption that it was still unfamiliar 
to them in the age of Augustus and Tiberius. 

But what grounds have we for assuming it to be a 
fact ? What reason is there for the expectation that 
the translators, if they had been ever so familiar with 
the term, would have introduced it into their version ? 
How often is Satan mentioned in the Old Testament? 
Only in three passages, though more than once in 
two out of three (Job i. 6 12, ii. 2 7 ; Zech. iii. i, 2 ; 
I Chron. xxi. i). In all of these he is designated 
* Satan'; in all the translators render the word, as 
became faithful translators, by the corresponding 
Greek term Sta/3o\o9. Why should they have gone 
out of their way to substitute 'the Evil One' for 
' the Accuser ' or ' the Adversary,' more especially as 
in all these passages the leading idea of the narrative 
in the context is that which is conveyed by ' Satan ' 
or Sm/3oXo9, but not by Trovrjpos ? 

'Not less decisive (continues Canon Cook, p. 9) is the 


usage of the Targums, which undoubtedly represent the form 
in which Lessons from the Bible were publicly read or ex- 
pounded to the contemporaries of our Lord.' .... 

* Thus, as respects the Targums, I have but to repeat, and 
urge not less strongly, the argument drawn from the use of the 

My answer applies to the Targums not less than 
to the Septuagint. The older Targums, to which 
alone his language will apply, are strictly interpre- 
tations. Where the original writer put Satan, 'the 
Adversary,' why should we expect the interpreter to 
go out of his way and substitute 'the Evil One'? 
As a matter of fact, the Targums commonly retain 
the same word 'Satan' as they find it. The only 
exception which I have noticed is Zech. iii. i, 2, 
where a Chaldee word equivalent in meaning to 
Satan is substituted. 

If this reply holds good in the case of the Tar- 
gums, is it a fortiori valid as an answer to the argument 
of Canon Cook that 'the Syriac of the Old Testament' 
never uses the expression 'the Evil One' for Satan. 
What reason is there to expect that it would use this 
term, however common the use of it may have been 
at the time ? 

But the objection from the absence of this desig- 
nation in the Talmudical and early Rabbinical writings 
still remains to be dealt with. What shall we say 
to this? 


It is answered by an appeal to these writings 
themselves. I do not profess to be a Rabbinical 
scholar myself; but this sweeping assertion seemed 
to me to court inquiry, and I therefore applied to my 
learned friend, the Rabbi Dr Schiller-Szinessy, of 
Cambridge, for information on the subject. He has 
supplied me with the following passages. I have no 
reason to think that he has exhausted all the examples. 
He has doubtless given those instances which occurred 
to him. 

(a) Midrash Shemoth Rabbah c. 21. The autho- 
rity quoted is Rab Ghana ben Chanina, who gives the 
explanation in the name of his father: "Thus, when 
Israel went out from Egypt, there stood up Samael 
the Angel to oppose them. He said before the Holy 
One blessed be He 'Lord of the Universe, hitherto 
these [the Israelites] have been idolaters, and wilt 
Thou divide the sea for them ?' What did the Holy 
One blessed be He do ? He surrendered to him 
[Satan] Job, who had been one of the councillors of 
Pharaoh, and concerning whom it is written, A man 
perfect and just [Job i. I, 8, ii. 3]. He said to him, 
Behold he is in thy hand [Job ii. 6], The Holy One 
blessed be He said, ' Whilst he [Satan] is engaged 
[grapples] with Job, the Israelites pass safely the sea, 
and afterwards I will save Job.' This is what Job 
means when he says [Job xvi. 12], 7 was at ease, but 


he hath broken me asunder .... and it is also written 
[xvi. 1 1], God hath delivered me over to the wicked one 
i.e., He hath put me into the hand of Satan," with 
more to the same effect. 

(b) Midrash Debarim Rabbah c. 1 1. " The Angel 
Samael, the Wicked One, the head of all Satanim 
[prince of the devils], was counting the death of 
Moses, and saying, 'When will come the end [the 
appointed time] or minute in which Moses shall die, 
that I should go down and take his soul from him?' 
For concerning him David says [Ps. xxxvii. 32], The 
wicked one watchethfor the righteous one, and seeketh to 
slay him. [Now] there is none so wicked among all 

the Satanim altogether as Samael Thus also did 

Samael the Wicked One watch for the soul of Moses 
and say, c When will Michael be weeping and I fill 
my mouth with laughter?' till Michael said to him, 
'What, O thou wicked one! I shall cry and thou 

shalt laugh/ And then said He [God] to Samael, 

the Wicked One," etc. 

(c) Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra i6a, " The 
earth is given into the hand of tJie wicked one [Job ix. 
24]. Rabbi Eliezer says, Job wanted to put the dish 
upside down \i.e., to blaspheme, saying, God is unjust]. 
Then answered him Rabbi Jehoshua, 'Job meant in 
this phrase [the wicked one] none but Satan.' " 

However, as I have intimated already, it seems to 


me to be a matter of very small moment whether 'the 
Evil, the Wicked One ' is so used in the LXX or in 
the Targums or in Talmudical writers, when it is 
confessedly employed in this sense by S. Matthew 
(reporting our Lord's words) and S. Paul and S. John; 
and it is not easy to account for the stress which 
Canon Cook lays on this argument. 

But Canon Cook has an expedient to invalidate 
the force of the evidence from the New Testament 
itself. He supposes that the term, 'the Evil One/ 
was first applied to Satan in the parable (Matt. xiii. 
19), and thence became common in the Christian 
Church. As the Lord's Prayer was delivered earlier, 
this sense would have been unintelligible to the hearers 
at that time, and therefore cannot have been intended. 
At least, so I understand his words (p. 5): 

* It must be observed first, that the Epistle of S. John was 
written more than half a century after the delivery of the 
parable in S. Matthew i.e., at a time when the expression, 
taken from the exposition of the parable itself, had probably 
become idiomatic.' 

And again (p. 10): 

'The single exception (Matt. xiii. 19) to which I refer is 
however very important. I have already alluded to it, and 
would on no account question its significance. I believe it to 
be the one saying of our Lord recorded in the earlier Gospels 
which determined the later usage of the Church. It was spoken 
however long after the Sermon on the Mount, and is far from 


proving that, when the discourse was uttered, the hearers would 
attach such a meaning to the expression.' 

This is a mere hypothesis, and in order to com- 
mend itself should bear on its face some verisimilitude. 
But what is the fact? If one thing be more clear 
than another, it is that o Trovrjpos had already this 
meaning, when the parable was spoken. It is not 
only itself unexplained, but is even introduced as an 
explanation of something else. The birds coming 
and devouring the seed sown by the way side are 
interpreted to mean ep^erat 6 Trovrjpo^ /cal dp7rd%i 
TO ea-Trapfjbevov K.T.\. Would not this have been to 
interpret obscurum per obscurius, unless o 73-01/77/909 
had already this recognised sense ? 


Very little need be said on the connexion of this 
clause with its context; and yet this little has an 
important bearing on the question at issue. We are 
taught to pray fj,rj elo'eveyfcys 77/^9 ew Treipa&fiov, d\\d 
pvaai ?7>a9 a-Tro rov Trovrjpov, ' Bring us not into temp- 
tation, but deliver us ' from what ? Does not the 
word ' temptation ' at once suggest the mention of the 
tempter ? And here I may perhaps be allowed to step 
aside for a moment and to say a word about another 
matter. The Revisers have been taken to task, even 


by friendly critics, for an unnecessary and therefore 
irritating change in substituting ' bring ' for * lead ' in 
the previous clause. But the word in the original 
certainly means 'bring' not 'lead/ elcrevey/crjs not 
elo-aydyr]? ; and considering the grave and subtle 
questions which gather about the subject of tempta- 
tion and its relation to the agency of God, it would 
seem to be a matter of real theological moment that 
the Revisers should be scrupulously exact in their 
rendering of this word. Any one who takes the 
pains to read the patristic comments on the clause 
'Bring us not into temptation' must be impressed 
with the anxiety which they betray, and will no 
longer (I venture to think) be disposed to censure 
the Revisers. This at least has been my own case, 
for I approached the subject with a decided repug- 
nance to the change, which nevertheless I am now 
convinced was right. But to return from this digres- 
sion. If the tempter is mentioned in the second clause, 

then, and then only, has the connexion firj a\\d 

.... its proper force. If on the other hand rov Trovrjpov 
be taken neuter, the strong opposition implied by these 
particles is no longer natural, for ' temptation ' is not 
coextensive with ' evil.' We should rather expect in 
this case, 'And deliver us from evil.' Several of the 
Fathers remark that S. Luke omits the last clause 
d\\a pv<rat ^/xa? djro TOV irovqpov, because he 'gives 
L. R. 19 


the prayer in an abridged form, and this petition was 
practically involved in the other. The comment is 
just, if TOV TTovrjpov be masculine, but not so if the 
neuter be adopted. Thus the context decidedly 
favours the masculine. Nor is it an insignificant 
fact that only two chapters before S. Matthew 
has recorded how the Author of this prayer found 
Himself face to face with temptation (iv. I, 3), and 
was delivered from the Evil One. 


The previous investigation has shown that the 
dictional usage of the New Testament writers, and 
the requirements of the context, both point in the 
same direction towards the masculine rendering of 
TOV TrovTjpov. I now purpose interrogating early 
exegesis. If its response is found to agree with 
the results hitherto obtained, this will be no slight 
confirmation of their truth. The channels of early 
exegesis are threefold : (i) The Versions ; (ii) The 
Liturgies; (iii) The writings of individual Fathers. 
Each of these therefore will have to be examined 
in turn. 

(i) The Versions. 
I. Of the ancient Versions, the Syriac will pro- 


bably be allowed to hold the chief place in a question 
of this kind. I gather from Canon Cook's language 
that he would not seriously quarrel with this estimate. 
He has not however investigated the usage of the 
Syriac Versions as regards the rendering of 6 irovrjpo^ 
and TO Trovrjpov. If he had done so, he would have 
found (I believe) that it gives no such uncertain sound 
as he supposes. 

For the sake of readers who are unacquainted with 
the Syriac language, it may be well to state that, as 
there are only two genders in this language, the mas- 
culine and the feminine, the neuter of the Greek has 
to be rendered by one of these. The feminine in 
Syriac is the proper equivalent for the neuter in 
Greek, as any common Syriac grammar, will show. 
The masculine however may be so used. Thus, in 
this particular word the masculine bisJio properly 
represents 6 Trovrjpos, but may represent TO Trowrjpoi', 
though the proper representative of the latter is the 
feminine bishtho. 

What then is the usage in the Peshito Syriac of 
the New Testament? 

In all passages where the masculine rendering is 
beyond a doubt, bisho is found. These are Matt. xiii. 
19, 38; Ephes. vi. 16; I John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 
19. On the other hand, in those passages where the 
neuter is unquestionable, the feminine bishtho (or, in 



the plural, btshotho 1 ) is found. These are Luke vi. 45, 
Rom. xii. 9. When therefore in the Lord's Prayer 
ToO irovrjpov is rendered by bisho, there is (to say the 
least) a strong presumption that 'the Evil One' is 
meant. Otherwise this version would depart in this 
passage alone from its general usage. 

The same is the case with regard to the Curetonian 
Syriac, which probably exhibits an older type of the 
Syriac Version than the Peshito. The evidence indeed 
is defective here, because only fragments of the Cure- 
tonian Syriac remain. But so far as it goes, its testi- 
mony is to the same effect. In Matt. xiii. 19, 38, it 
has the masculine bisho, which also is its rendering in 
the petition in the Lord's Prayer. These are the only, 
passages yi the extant fragments which throw any 
light on the question. 

But this is not all. So familiar was the word 
bisho, ' the Evil One/ as a synonym for Satan, to the 
ear of a Syrian, that in the Curetonian Syriac it ap- 
pears in Matt. xiii. 39, where the original has 6 iu- 
/3oXo?, and in the Peshito Syriac in Acts x. 38, 
where the original has TOV Sta/3oXou. 

We are now in a position to measure the accuracy 
of a statement made by Dr Neubauer (Academy, June 

1 The printed editions of the Peshito have the plural ; but, as the 
difference is only one of vocalisation, the original text doubtless had 
the singular, corresponding to the Greek. This point however does 
not affect the question at issue. 


1 8, 1 88 1, p. 455): 'The Aramaic original of airo rov 
Trovrjpov seems to have been men bishol So far I agree 
with him, if at least the words were originally spoken 
in Aramaic and nbt in Greek a question not to be 
decided offhand. It seems probable that in this in- 
stance the Syriac would have preserved the original 
words. But he adds, ' which can be translated from 
evil, and from the evil, but not from the Evil One! 
And lower down he writes, ' Both Syriac translations 
have from evil or from the evil'' A glance at Dr 
Payne Smith's Thesaurus would have saved him 
from this error. 'Imprimis usurpatur de diabolo/ 
writes this learned Syriac scholar, speaking of the 
word bisho. The instances which I have given show 
that there is no exaggeration in this imprimis. The 
word not only can be rendered ' the Evil One/ but is 
most naturally so rendered. It is indeed difficult to 
see how else 6 71-0^77/009, when referring to Satan, could 
be translated so appropriately. The paraphrastic ren- 
dering in the Peshito of the Old Testament, when it 
refers to a human agent, 'a doer of evil/ on which 
Canon Cook seems to lay stress, as if it supported 
his own view (p. 9), would be out of place as applied 
to the author of evil. 

2. From the Syriac I pass to the Latin Versions. 
The Old Latin (the term Old Italic, by which Canon 
Cook calls it, should be avoided, as it seems certainly 


to have been made in the first instance not for Italy, 
but for Africa) has ' Libera nos a malo.' There seems 
to be no variation in any of the extant forms or recen- 
sions of this version ; and this rendering is retained 
also by Jerome in his Vulgate. Was malo here in- 
tended as a masculine or a neuter ? 

The earliest Latin Fathers, as we shall see pre- 
sently, interpreted it as a masculine. Though to ears 
accustomed only to classical Latin, or even to later 
theological Latin, it might suggest the neuter rather 
than the masculine, this was not the case with these 
primitive writers. Mahts was with them a recognised 
term for ' the Evil One '; e.g. Tertull. de Idol 16 ' Ita 
mains circumdedit saeculum idololatria,' ib. 21 'Per 
quern te malus honori idolorum, id est idololatriae, 
quaerebat annectere,' de Cult. Fern. ii. 5 'Christianus 
a malo illo adjuvabitur in aliquo?' de Patient, n 
' Lata atque diffusa est operatic mail; multiplicia 
spiritus incitements jacttlantis .... certemus igitur quae 

a malo infliguntur sustinere Quaqua ex parte aut 

erroribus nostris aut mail insidiis, etc.' (where the 
obvious reference to Ephes. vi. 16, and indeed the 
whole context, show that the masculine is intended). 
These instances are partly taken from Oehler's index 
to Tertullian, where, after his list of references, the 
editor adds ' et saepius.' I have no reason to think 
this statement exaggerated. 


Again, I turn to the index to Hartel's Cyprian, 
and I find that after giving two references where 
mains signifies 'the Evil One/ he too adds 'et saepius.' 
With the earliest Latin Fathers therefore this was a 
common use of the term. 

But Canon Cook urges against this meaning in 
the Lord's Prayer what he supposes to be the general 
usage of the Latin Versions elsewhere. ' On referring 
to other passages/ he writes (p. 10), 'I find that in 
every case but one, where the Greek certainly points 
to a personal agent, and specially to Satan, both 
Jerome and the Old Italic have the word malignus, 
not malus! The exception to which he refers is 
Matt. xiii. 19, epxercu 6 Trowrjpos. 

This statement needs much qualification. The 
word is translated by mains in Matt. xiii. 19, where 
it is certainly masculine ; it is so translated again in 
Matt. v. 37, etc TOV Trovrjpov ICTTLV, a malo est, and 
John xvii. 15, iva vrjpijo-r)? avrovs etc TOV 7rovrjpov y ut 
serves eos a malo, in which passages it was commonly, 
and (I believe) rightly, taken as masculine by the 
Fathers. So too in 2 Thess. iii. 3, <j>v\d%ei a-jrb TOV 
TTovqpov, custodiet a malo. It is rendered by this 
same adjective again in I Cor. v. 13, egapare (e%a- 
peiTe) TOV. TTovrjpbv, and in Matt. v. 39, fj,rj dvTiaTijvai, 
TO> irovrjpw, in both which passages it probably means 
'the evil man/ In Luke vi. 45, 6 Trovrjpbs IK TOV 


.... TO Trovijpov, it stands malus de malo .... 
malum, though Cod. Verc. substitutes nequam for 
malus, thus destroying the studied iteration. In 
Ephes. vi. 16, ra j3e\rj rov Trovrjpov is translated by 
tela nequissimi. In Matt. xiii. 38 however the Cod. 
Brix. has filii maligni for ol viol rov irovrjpov ; but 
here the readings of other MSS are different ; Veron. 
filii iniquity Vercell. filii nequitiae, Corb. filii nequam ; 
and this last is followed by Jerome in his Vulgate. 
Even here it may be conjectured (though no stress 
can be laid on the conjecture) that the original 
reading was mali, and that it was variously altered, 
some transcribers supposing it to be the nominative 
agreeing with^/zY. If not, it was probably Jitu iniqui, 
as read in the Cod. Veron., iniqui being intended as a 
genitive. At all events we have found no authority 
for malignus as a rendering of 6 7701/77/305 in the 
Gospels ; for filii maligni of Cod. Brix., in Matt. xiii. 
38, is an obvious correction for the sake of clearness, 
and indeed cannot be pleaded by Canon Cook him- 
self, who contends for the neuter rendering here (p. 7). 
Only then at length, when we arrive at the First 
Epistle of S. John, is o Trovrjpos rendered by malignus 
(i John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19). 

The proper Latin equivalent of o jroz/^po? is malus, 

1 Canon Cook has by some mistake given./?/// nequiliae as the read- 
ing of the Cod. Veron. 


not malignus. For the sake of avoiding ambiguity, 
or for other reasons, it might be rendered by malignus, 
as is done consistently by the translator of S. John's 
Epistles. But the full sense of the word, as applied 
to the author of evil, is lost by the use of this more 
restricted term ; and there is no ground for supposing 
that the translator or translators of the Gospels would 
have made this sacrifice. 

3. In the first rank, together wich the Syriac and 
Latin, stand the two principal Egyptian Versions. 

The Sahidic, the version of Upper Egypt, is quite 
explicit. It adopts the Greek word Trowrjpos, pre- 
fixing the Egyptian definite article, pponeros (not 
piponeros, as given by Canon Cook, p. n, for this is 
the Memphitic form). Canon Cook indeed, while 
allowing that this rendering ' most probably indicates 
a personal agent/ yet attempts to invalidate its tes- 
timony by adding in a note, * Not certainly ; for 
when Greek words are taken into the Coptic Version 
the translators keep the first and simplest form un- 
changed/ and he gives the instance of met-chrestos, 
' goodness.' It is quite true that for ^T/O-TOT^? they 
might use met-chrestos, prefixing the Egyptian form- 
ative particle met- to the first form of the Greek word 
which came to hand. But this is a wholly different 
thing from rendering TO irovypov by pponeros, which 
properly represents 6 Trovrjpbs, and, until some instance 


of such a usage can be adduced, I am constrained to 
hold that the Sahidic translator without question 
adopted the masculine rendering. 

The case is different with the Memphitic, the 
version of Lower Egypt. Here the translator, in- 
stead of incorporating the Greek word, adopts the 
corresponding Egyptian, pi-pet-hoou. This is alto- 
gether ambiguous. The Egyptian language, like the 
Syriac, has no neuter, and the feminine commonly 
does duty for it (Peyron's Gramm. Copt. p. 34). But 
this is very far from being a universal rule. In the 
present instance pi-pet-hoou is used equally where the 
masculine is certain (Matt. xiii. 19, 38 ; I Cor. v. 13 ; 
Ephes. vi. 16), where the neuter is certain (Luke vi. 
45 ; Rom. xii. 9), and where the gender in the Greek 
is disputable or disputed (Matt. v. 37, 39; John xvii. 
1552 Thess. iii. 3). But here again we meet with the 
same phenomenon as in the Latin Version. When 
we get to the First Epistle of S. John we find a 
change. The translator adopts piponeros ( i John ii. 
13, 14; v. 1 8) as the rendering of 6 iroviypos, though 
not consistently; for in I John iii. 12, v. 19, he has 
pi-pet-hoou. Here again, as in the case of the Latin 
Version, the rendering piponeros probably betrays a 
different hand from the translator of the Gospels. 

At the same time, though ambiguous in itself, it 
was taken as^ a masculine in the Egyptian Church, as 


may be inferred from the fact that in the embolismus 
of the Lord's Prayer, which will be quoted hereafter, 
the Greek words pvcrai ??/Aa<? CLTTO TOV Trovrjpov Kal rwv 
cpycav avrov are translated in the Coptic Liturgy 
4 Nahmen ebolha pi-pet-hdou nem nef-hbeoui.' 

The reader will have gathered from these facts 
how little justification there is for the statement of 
Canon Cook that ' as a general rule the form quoted 
above \_pi-pet-hoo2t} is appropriated in the Memphitic 
Version to the neuter' (p. u). When he asserts 
that pi-pet-hdou is used 'invariably to render TO TTOVTJ- 
pov in this version/ the assertion indeed is true, but it 
tends to mislead : for ' invariably ' is not an appro- 
priate expression, where the distinct examples of 
TO Trovrjpov in the New Testament are two only. 
Again, when he states that 'Perrone, the highest 
authority, holds it to be neuter' (Lex. Cop., p. 340), 
this language also is misleading, though doubtless 
unintentionally so. Peyron [not 'Perrone'] does not 
mention this passage, but gives the neuter sense to 
pi-pet-hdou with other references. 

But Canon Cook urges that ' had a personal agent 
been meant, all ambiguity would have been avoided 
by the use of either of two common forms, ref-er-pet- 
JLOOU or ef-hoou? As a matter of fact, neither of 
these forms is once used in this version when a 
personal agent is meant ; nor, unless I am mistaken, 


could either of them stand here. The one, ref-er-pet- 
hoou, means a 'doer of evil/ and is unsuitable as 
applied to the author of evil ; the other, ef-hdou, is a 
predicate or adjective, and might stand for irovrjpos 
or irovrjpbs cov, but not for 6 iroviipos. There is 
indeed a form which is used in Luke vi. 45, as a 
rendering of 6 Trovrjpos, pi-sa-em-pet-hdou, but, like 
ref-er-pet-hoou t it would not be appropriate of him 
who is the Evil One absolutely. 

These are the oldest versions, and stand in a 
class by themselves. The latest of them perhaps 
falls within the second century, or at all events not 
much later. Of these four, two the Syriac and 
Sahidic point to the masculine rendering, and two 
the Latin and Memphitic are altogether indeter- 
minate. In these latter, however, the word was in- 
terpreted as masculine in their respective Churches 
in the earliest times of which we have evidence. 
We have as yet found no authority for the neuter. 

Of the remaining versions the earliest does not 
date before about the middle of the fourth century. 
They are therefore of far inferior importance, and 
need not detain us long. Of these versions, belong- 
ing to the second rank, the Gothic and the Armenian 
are as ambiguous as the Greek. Canon Cook indeed 
writes of the former, ' The Gothic of Ulfila has of 
thaimna tibilin, corresponding to the Old Italic, ma- 


him, i.e. evil, not the Evil One' But af thamma 
ubilin is masculine as well as neuter, and no inference 
therefore can be drawn from the words themselves. 
The earliest version which favours the neuter is the 
ythiopic, where diro rov Trovijpov is rendered 'from 
all evil.' The date of this version is uncertain. Dill- 
mann assigns it to the fourth century ; Gildemeister 
and others to the sixth or seventh. The Abyssinians 
themselves are said not to claim an early date for it. 
But, whether early or late, it was translated by some- 
one who betrays gross ignorance of Greek. Thus 
aXXd/uei/09 (Acts iii. 8) is translated pisces capiens, as 
if dXievcov', ireSai? (Luke viii. 29), parvulis, as if 
Trdrrja-e (Rom. vii. n), conculcavit, as if 
These and other examples are given by 
Tregelles Introduction to the New Testament, p. 319 sq. 
Yet this work, of highly questionable date and wholly 
unquestionable ignorance, is the chief witness among 
the versions for the neuter rendering. Later and se- 
condary versions like the Anglo-Saxon, which Canon 
Cook quotes, are absolutely valueless for our purpose. 

(ii) The Liturgies. 

The Liturgies also will be allowed on all hands to 
be most valuable witnesses only second, if second, 
to the Versions. A Liturgy represents not the mind 
of an individual, or of a congregation, or even of a 


diocese or province, but (in many cases) of a whole 
patriarchate. Whatever may have been the origin of 
a particular prayer or petition, it is adopted by the 
congregations throughout this large area, and thus it 
educates and moulds them. The one drawback to 
the value of this testimony is the difficulty of ascer- 
taining dates. Liturgies grew by accretion and deve- 
lopment ; and it is not easy to separate the more 
ancient from the more modern parts. But after all 
allowance made for this uncertainty, their testimony 
has the highest importance. It is therefore strange 
that, with the exception of a reference to the Moza- 
rabic Liturgy in a note, Canon Cook has altogether 
ignored this source of evidence. 

This is the more remarkable, because we have 
exceptionally good means of arriving at the mind of 
the Liturgies on the question at issue. The Lord's 
Prayer holds a prominent place in them ; the last 
petition, pvaat yfjias diro rov Trovrjpov, being expanded 
into a form of prayer called embolismus. 

Setting aside the Liturgies of the Latin-speaking 
peoples of the West, we may say that the whole area 
of the Church is covered by three forms of Liturgy. 
The oldest extant types of these are the Liturgy of 
S. James, the Liturgy of S. Mark, and the Liturgy of 
Adasus. The first is, roughly speaking, coextensive 
with the patriarchate of Antioch ; the second with the 


patriarchate of Alexandria ; and the third comprises 
the populations to the farther East, who spoke not 
Greek, but (for the most part) Aramaic. 

The following then are the forms which the em- 
bolismus takes in these three Liturgies respectively. 
I quote them from Hammond's Liturgies Eastern and 
Western (Oxford, 1878), as a volume easily accessible 
and convenient for reference : 

(i) Liturgy of S. James p. 47; 

Kat firj et<Jveyiq7S ^/x,as eis Trctpacr/xoi/, Kvpte, Kvpie TWI/ 
Svvdjj.(j)v, d etSous rrjv aVflevetai/ Ty/Awy, aAAa pixrat ly/ 
TOV Trovrjpov Kat TCOV cpycov avrov, 7rdcnr)<; eirr/petas 
avrov, 8ta TO OVO/JLOL crov TO aytov, TO eTTtKX^^ej/ CTTI 
pav Ta7retVcoo-tv. 

(ii) Liturgy of S. Mark p. 188 ; 

Nat Kvpte, Kvpte, /xi) cl&evtyKys 7;/xa5 etg Trctpaer/xov aXXci 
pwrat 7^/>ws ct7ro TOV Trovrjpov. oTSev yap T; TroAA?; o~ov cv- 
O'TrXay^vi'a ort ov 8wa/xe^a VTrcveyKetv Sta TI}V TroAA^v ly/iwi' 
acr0eviav aXXa irofycrov (rvv TO> 7retpao"/xw Kat cKy8ao~tv, TOU 
xas VTrcveyKetv. av yap IScoKas ly/xty e^ovo-tai/ TraTctJ/ 
o^>ea)V Kat o-KOp7riW, Kai CTT! Tracrav TJ}I> BvvafJLiv TOV 

(iii) Liturgy of Adceus p. 279: 

'Ne nos inducas, Domine, in tentationem, sed libera et 
salva nos a malo et ab exercitibus ejus.' 

Thus all these Liturgies are in favour of the 
masculine rendering. The meaning of the first and 


third is obvious. The first paraphrases 'deliver us 
from the Evil One and his works, from all his inso- 
lence and plotting'; the third, ' deliver and save us 
from the Evil One and his hosts.' The second is not 
quite so explicit; but its bearing is obvious. The 
explanation of airo rov irovrjpov appears in the words, 
'Thou hast given us power to tread upon serpents 
and scorpions, and upon all the power of the Enemy.' 
But, when we turn to the Western Liturgies, all is 
changed. The Latin-speaking peoples embodied in 
their Eucharistic Service the interpretation which (as 
will be shown presently) appears first in the later 
Latin Fathers from Augustine onwards. In the Gre- 
gorian and Gelasian Canons (Hammond, pp. 372, 373) 
the embolismus takes the form, 'Libera nos, quae- 
sumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis praeteritis, prae- 
sentibus, et futuris, [et] intercedente beata et gloriosa 
semperfque] virgine Dei genitrice Maria,' etc., where 
the context betrays the late date of this form. This 
is also the form adopted in Roman and other later 
Latin Liturgies (pp. 344, 345). The words are wholly 
different, and not so explicit, in the Mozarabic Liturgy 
(ib.y p. 345), but they seem likewise to point to the 
neuter ; ' Liberati a malo, confirmati semper in bono, 
tibi servire mereamur Deo ac Domino nostro.' Strange- 
ly enough, this last is the only Liturgy which Canon 
Cook has quoted. 


But though this was apparently the sense which 
the later Latin Churches put upon the words 'a 
malo' in the Lord's Prayer, as used in the Eucha- 
ristic Service, we have satisfactory evidence that it 
was differently understood at one time. 

In an ancient Exposition of the Roman Mass 
printed by Martene (de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. p. 450) the 
words ' Sed libera nos a malo' are thus commented 
upon : 

* Hoc est a diabolo, qui totius mali et auctor est et origo. 
Diabolus natura caelestis fuit, nunc est nequitia spiritalis ; 
aetate major saeculo, nocendi usu tritus, laedendi arte peri- 
tissimus, unde non jam matus, sed malum dicilur, a quo est 
omne quod malum est. .... Petendum nobis est ergo ut Deus 
nos a diabolo liberet, qui Christum terris ut diabolum vinceret 
commodavit. Clamet, clamet homo ad Deum, clamet Libera 
nos a malo, ut a tanto malo, solo Christo vincente, liberetur.' 

This is the more remarkable, because the writer 
immediately afterwards proceeds to comment on the 
embolismiis in the form in which it occurs in the 
Roman Mass, ' Libera nos, quaesumus, ab omnibus 
malis praeteritis,' etc. If the words which I have 
italicised formed part of the original text of this 
exposition (as they seem to have done), the pheno- 
menon is instructive as showing that, though the 
writer took 'malo' for a neuter, yet the older interpre- 
tation, which was founded on the masculine rendering, 
still so far survived and influenced him that he felt 
L. R. 20 


constrained to interpret it directly of Satan, 'that 
evil thing/ This exposition is attributed by the 
editor to about the year 800. 

We are now in a position to see what force there 
is in the following pleading of Canon Cook (p. 18) : 

' So far as I am aware, in no collection of prayers, in no 
ancient liturgy, and in no authorised form of devotional exer- 
cises, has the primitive Church, or our own Church, or any 
other Church before or after the Reformation, prescribed sepa- 
rate or special prayers for deliverance from the power of 

I imagine that at this point he must have recalled 
the familiar words of the Litany : 

' From the crafts and assaults of the devil, .... 

Good Lord, deliver us. 

' From all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and 
the devil, 

Good Lord, deliver its' 
At all events he continues : 

' The crafts and assaults of the devil, the temptations brought 
to bear upon man's frailty, are of course dwelt upon as motives 
for watchfulness and earnestness ; prayers are offered that 
those assaults may be averted and brought to nought ; but all 
such prayers are, I believe, invariably connected with petitions 
to be delivered from evil, from all evil and mischief, and specially 
from sin and wickedness, and, in comparison with such petitions, 
occupy a secondary place.' 

Whether the reader will consider these statements 
consistent with the facts which I have adduced, I do 


not know ; but I venture to think that they can only 
be vindicated, when confronted with these facts, by 
such an interpretation of their meaning as deprives 
them of any real value for the purpose for which they 
were made. 

(iii) The Fathers. 

Among Greek writers there is, so far as I have 
observed, absolute unanimity on this point. They 
do not even betray the slightest suspicion that any 
other interpretation is possible. 

In the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES xix. 2 sq., S. 
Peter is represented as inferring the existence of the 
Evil One from our Lord's own words. He says ; 

o/*oXoyw etvai TOV Trovypov, STL TroXXa/a? avVoV vVapxetv o 
irdvra. aX^evVas flprjKtv StSacncaXos .... otSa O.VTOV flp-rjKora 
.... OTL EoopaKei/ ToV Trovrjpov 009 aarpaTrryj/ Trccroi/ra .... /cat 
WXiv Mi? Sore Trpofyaarw TO> TrovTypa). aXXa Kat o-vfjL(3ov\va)v eip^- 


TOV TTOvifjpov lo~TLV. aXXa Kat iv rj TrapeScoKev tvXQ l^o/xev elpr]fLvov 
'Pvaat 7^/>tas a?ro TOU irovypov .... Kat Iva. py ts TTO\V /X^KVVW 
TOV Xoyov, TroXXaKt? olSa TOV StSctcr/caXof pov tiirovra. tivai TOV 

I have nothing to say for the general orthodoxy 
of this writer, nor is his accuracy of quotation all 
that could be desired ; but on a question of this kind 
his early date gives a high value to his testimony. 

20 2 


ORIGEN de Orat. 30 (l. p. 265) explains this 
petition : 

pverat Se i^/xas o cos UTTO TOV 7rov?7pov, ov^t ore ov 
T^/JLIV TrpoVeiaii' avTiTraA.auov o t^pos oY ottuv S^TTOTC 
eavTov /cal vTnypCTtoi/ TOV ^eXry/xaros avYov, aAA.' O7 


and he gives Job as an instance. 

ID. Sel in Psalm, ii. 3 (n. p. 66 1), 

*Sed et Dominus in Evangelio diabolum non dixit pec- 
catorem tantummodo, sed malignum, vel malum, et cum docet 
in oratione vel dicit, Sed libera nos a malo .... Aliud est enim 
per ignorantiam mala agere et vinci a malo ; aliud est voluntate 
et studio mala facere, et hoc est nequitia, Unde et merito 
diabolus nomine TTOI^POS-, id est malignus, vel nequam, appel- 

DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA Fragin. p. 1601 (ed. 

Kat nrj ctcreveyKTjs 7;/jtas ct? 7rctpa(r/xov* TOVTCCTTI pr} courts 

/X7TCTtI/ CIS 7Tlpa(T/XoV, OTl 8e ToCrO T^V OV TO fllj 7Tlpa- 

i, pvcr6rjvaL 8e avro TOV Trovrjpov, 7rpoo-^KV, 'AAAa pucrat 
aTTo TOV Tronypou. Kal Tt Siev^i/o^ev, to"a>s epcts, TO 
TTLpa.(rGfjvai Kal TO ets 7reipacrfj.ov e/x7rO*etv ir/rot to~X^tv; o 
jtxev ycxp qTrrjOfis viro TOV Trovrjpov . . . . cts TretpaoyxoV ovros 

Kttl CIS 7TlpaO"/XOV CtO-^X^C, KCU tCTTtl' V ttVTO) Kttt V7T* 

-Trep exacts ai^/xaXtoTOS . . . . o /xiv yap 7rovYjpo<s Tretpa- 
is TOWS Trctpacr/Aovs Ka.6e\Ki K.T.X. 

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Catech. xxiii. 19 (p. 331), 

Sc o dvTiKCt/Acvos Sat/xcuv, a</>* ou pwOrjvai 


GREGORY NYSSEN de Omt. Dom. 5 (i. p. 760), 

apa o TreipaoTxos re /cat d Trov^pos fv TL /cara r-qv a" 

f(TTl. . . . pUO-at 77/X<XS ttTTO TOV TTOVrjpOV, TOV V TO> KoV/XO) TOuYto 
Tj)v tOT^VI/ KKTTT]fJ,VOV, K.T.X. 

ed. Migne), 

d Sia^oXos Kat Sarava? KCU Trovrjpds. tJs CK cvayycXtw o 

(TOJTTyp TTpOS T ( 30t9 Kttt TOUTO \ytV 8t8cX(7Kt V T7^ f^\V TO ^? 

fjLaOfjTds' Kat /XT; eto-cve'yKrjs Ty/xas ets Treipacr/xov, a'AXa pOom 
rj/xas a*7ro TOV irovrjpov. 

ID. Enarr. in Epist. Prim. Johann. v. 19 (p. 1806, 
ed. Migne), 

1 Lib era nos a malo; redimuntur namque et liberantur ab eo 
cuncti qui nequaquam ab ignitis ejus jaculis vulnerantur, etc.' 

ClIRYSOSTOM In Matth. Horn. xix. (vil. p. 253), 

Trovrjpov 8e cvTavda TOV Sta^oXov KaXet, /ceXet'ooi/ ly/xas 

ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM ^//>/. iv. 24 (p. 425), 

TO 'POcrat 7;/xa? CITTO TOU irovypov, ot Trpos TOI/ 
l' I^OVTCS TT)^ /xa^v [St/catoi av eTev Xeycti/]. 

I do not doubt that it would be possible to in- 
crease the list of testimonies largely; but these 
examples will suffice. 

The unanimity extends, so far as I have investi- 
gated, to Greek writers of all ages. 

Among the Latin Fathers there is not the same 
agreement. The Latin Version 'libera nos a malo' 


was less explicit than the original; and 'a malo' 
could much more easily be treated as a neuter than 
dirb roO irovijpov. The point to be observed is that 
the two great ante-Nicene Latin Fathers, writing 
while the Greek original still spoke through the 
Latin Version, treat it as a masculine. 

The testimony of the earliest Latin Father is 
clear and decisive ; 

TERTULLIAN de Orat. 3, 

* Ne nos inducas in temptationem, id est, ne nos patiaris 
induci, ab eo utique qui temptat. Ceterum absit ut Dominus 

temptare videatur diaboli est et infirmitas et malitia Ipse 

a diabolo temptatus praesidem et artificem temptationis demon- 

stravit Ergo respondet clausula, interpretans quid sit, Ne 

nos inducas in temptationem. Hoc est enim, Sed devehe nos a 
malo. 1 

' It is to be regretted/ writes Canon Cook on this 
passage, 'that in his treatise on the Lord's Prayer 
Tertullian simply quotes the last petition devehe nos a 
malo without giving any interpretation/ ' From this 
supposed silence he argues that 'in whatever sense 
the Latin Version used the word, in that Tertullian 
received it'; and, forasmuch as he claims to 'have 
shown that malignus, not mains, was the word used 
in all redactions of the Old Italic Version, when the 
personal enemy of mankind was designated/ he infers 
that Tertullian here understands a malo in the neuter 


I have already discussed Canon Cook's treatment 
of the Old Latin Version, and shall therefore pass 
over his inference from it in silence here. Of the 
whole argument in the passage just quoted it is 
sufficient to say that it starts from a false premiss. 
Tertullian does give an interpretation of the words 
devehe nos a malo, indirectly indeed, but not less 
plainly on that account. He says that when we 
pray not to be brought into temptation we must 
understand that the temptation comes not from God, 
but from the devil; so that the following clause, 
sed deveJu nos a malo, answers to and interprets what 
has gone before. The words 'ergo respondet clausula 
interpretans,' etc., would be rendered meaningless, if 
' malo ' were not masculine. This being so, it is lost 
labour to argue that devehe is more appropriate of a 
thing than of a person, as Canon Cook does. 

* In a much later treatise however,' he continues, * De Fuga 
in Per. c. 1 1 [the reference should be c. 2], Tertullian has an 
entirely different rendering, erue nos a maligno....T'hQ difference 
of rendering may indicate, and may probably be explained by, a 
change of feeling such as might be evolved in the spirit of a 
separatist, especially in the direction of Montanism.' 

Here the words 'difference of rendering' must 
imply ' difference of interpretation,' if the context is 
to have any meaning. But not only (as we have 
seen) is the interpretation the same in the two 
passages, but also (what is more important) the 


argument is the same. Here are Tertuilian's own 
words in the second passage : 

1 Cum dicimus ad patrem, Ne nos inducas in temptationem 
. . . . ab eo illam profitemur accidere, a quo veniam ejus depre- 
camur. Hoc est enim quod sequitur, sed erue nos a maligno, 
id est, ne nos induxeris in temptationem permittendo nos ma- 
ligno; tune enim eruimur diaboli manibus, cum illi non tradimur 
in temptationem.' 

Thus Tertullian is perfectly consistent with him- 
self. If any shadow of doubt could have rested on 
the interpretation of the first passage, it would have 
been dispelled by the second. 

We pass on to the next great Latin Father, who 
owned Tertullian as his master. He is, as Canon 
Cook says, a 'most weighty attestation to the mind 
of the Latin Church': 

CYPRIAN de Domin. Orat. 25 sq. 

'Illud quoque necessarie monet Dominus ut in oratione 
dicamus, et ne patiaris nos induct in temptationem : qua in 
parte ostenditur nihil contra nos adversarium posse, nisi Deus 
ante permiserit, ut omnis timor noster et devotio adque obser- 
vatio ad Deum convertatur, quando in temptationibus nihil 

malo liceat, nisi potestas inde tribuatur Potestas vero 

dupliciter adversum nos datur, vel ad poenam cum delinqui- 
mus, vel ad gloriam cum probamur : sicuti de Job factum 
videmus manifestante Deo et dicente, Ecce omnia quaecumque 
habet in tuas manus do, sed ipsum cave ne tangos. Et Dominus 
in evangelio loquitur tempore passionis, Nullam haberes potes- 
tatem adversum me, nisi data esset tibi desuper.....\n novissimo 
enim ponimus sed libera nos a inalo^ comprehendentes ad versa 


cuncta quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur inimicus, a 

quibus potest esse firma et fida tutela, si nos Deus liberet 

Quando autem dicimus libera nos a malo, nihil remanet quod 
ultra adhuc debeat postulari, quando semel protectionem Dei 
adversus malum petamus, qua impetrata contra omnia quae 
diabolus et mundus operantur securi stamus et tuti.' 

Throughout this passage the sense requires that 
malum, malo, be treated as masculines, as Hartel in 
his index rightly assumes. The expression ' nihil 
malo liceat, nisi potestas inde (i.e. a Deo) tribuatur,' 
corresponds to the preceding ' nihil contra nos adver- 
sarium posse, nisi Deus ante permiserit.' The constant 
references to the enemy of mankind under divers 
names adversaries, 'inimicus, diabolus point to this 
interpretation. The examples enforce it. Indeed 
the whole argument requires it; for in this respect 
the passage is merely an expansion, with illustrations, 
of the comment of Cyprian's master, Tertullian. 

Canon Cook however only quotes one sentence, 
' Sed libera nos a malo, comprehendentes adversa 
cuncta quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur inimi- 
cus,' to which (quite unintentionally) he gives a strong 
bias in his own favour by his translation, 'But de- 
liver us from evil, comprehending all evils which the 
enemy devises against us in this world.' Here, by 
translating adversa 'evils/ as if it were mala, he 
makes adversa cuncta the interpretation of a malo, 
whereas in fact its interpretation lies in inimicus, as 


the whole context shows. I quite agree with Canon 
Cook that 'very special importance attaches to this 
exposition of Cyprian's'; and I claim him as a power- 
ful witness on my side. 

Even in the latter half of the fourth century this 
interpretation is not lost in the Latin Churches, 
though it becomes gradually obscured : 

AMBROSE De Sacram. v. 29 sq. (n. p. 380), 

' Non dicit, Non inducas in tentationemj sed quasi athleta 
talem vult tentationem quam ferre possit humana conditio ; et 
unusquisque a malo, hoc est, ab inimico, a peccato, liberetur. 
Potens est autem Dominus .... tueri et custodire vos adversum 
diaboli adversantis insidias.' 

HILARY Tract, in cxviii Psalm. \. 15 (I. p. 282), 

* Quod et in dominicae orationis ordine continetur, cum 
dicitur Non derelinquas nos in tentatione, quam ferre non 

possimus lob Deus tentationi permittens, a jure diaboli 

potestatem animae ejus excerpsit, etc.' 

This is far from explicit, but as Hilary elsewhere 
(Comm. in Matt. v. i, I. p. 689) excuses himself 
from commenting on the Lord's Prayer on the ground 
that he has been anticipated by Cyprian and Tertul- 
lian, it may be presumed that he acquiesced in their 

With AUGUSTINE however a new era begins. 
The voice of the original Greek has ceased to be 
heard, or at least to be heard by an ear familiar 
with its idiom; and, notwithstanding his spiritual 


insight, the loss here, as elsewhere, is very percept- 
ible : 

Epist. 130 (II. p. 390), 

' Libera nos a malo ; nos admonemur cogitare, nondum nos 
esse in eo bono, ubi nullum patiemur malum. Et hoc quidem 
ultimum, quod in dominica oratione positum est, tarn late patet, 
ut homo Christianas in qualibet tribulatione constitutus in hoc 
gemitus edat, etc.' 

De Serm. Dom. ii. 35 (in. 2, p. 214), 

* Sed libera nos a malo. Orandum est enim ut non solum 

non inducamur in malum, quo caremus sed ab illo etiam 

liberemur, quo jam inducti sumus, etc.'; 37 (p. 215), 'et 
malum a quo liberari optamus, et ipsa liberatio a malo, ad 
hanc utique vitam pertinet, quam et justitia Dei mortalem 
meruimus, et unde ipsius misericordia liberamur.' 

Serm. Ivi. (v. p. 330), 

'Libera nos a malo, hoc est ab ipsa tentatione.' Comp. 
Serm. Ivii. (p. 334), Serm. Iviii. (p. 342). 

Serm. clxxxii. 4 (v. p. 872), 

' Et si susurret tibi Quid est quod clamasti, Libera nos 

a malo? Certe non est malum. Responde illi, Ego sum malus, 

De Pecc. Her. ii. 4 (x. p. 41), 
4 Libera nos a malo. Manet enim malum in carne nostra.' 

Thus the older interpretation has passed out of 

The patristic testimony therefore in favour of the 
masculine rendering is overwhelming. To Canon 
Cook however it assumes a wholly different aspect : 


' I venture to assert (he writes) that no allusion to this view 
of the meaning of the petition is to be found in the so-called 
Apostolic Fathers, or in Justin Martyr, or in Irenseus, or in 
Clement of Alexandria, or any of their contemporaries or 
in short in any Greek-speaking Father earlier than Origen' 
(p. 14). 

The reader would, I imagine, infer from this 
language that allusions to the other rendering were 
numerous, or at least not rare. The case however is 
far otherwise. If there is no allusion to this view of 
the meaning of the petition, it is because there is no 
allusion to the petition at all. 

But is it quite certain that no such allusion occurs? 
The reference is not so clear as to be beyond a doubt, 
and therefore I do not press it. But when Polycarp 
(c. 7), after condemning one type of heretic as from 
the devil, and another as the firstborn of Satan, goes 
on to warn his readers to shun such false teaching 
and to give themselves to prayer, 'beseeching the 
allseeing God not to bring us into temptation' (pr) etVe- 
vey/celv 77/^9 e^9 7T6pacr//,o2/), this reference to the 
petition in the Lord's Prayer certainly gains in point 
if we suppose him to have adopted the masculine 

Again, Canon Cook has his own explanation of 
the origin and spread of the masculine rendering. 
He says of Origen (p. 14) that 'he was apt to 
introduce new thoughts, new speculations into the 


sphere of Christian doctrine.' Elsewhere he writes 
more explicitly (p. 15, note): 

'Considering the absence of testimony as to any earlier 
admission of a reference to Satan in the Lord's Prayer, and on 
the other hand the very remarkable influence of Origen upon 
the exegesis of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the fourth and 
fifth centuries, I am disposed to believe, though I should 
hesitate to assert, that this interpretation was first introduced, 
as it was certainly urged upon the Church, by Origen himself.' 

This surmise is refuted at once by the fact that 
the interpretation in question appears before Origen's 
time in the Latin Church i,n passages of Tertullian, 
which Canon Cook himself has quoted elsewhere but 
strangely overlooks here, and among Greek Christians 
in a passage of the Clementine Homilies, which has 
escaped Canon Cook's notice but is cited above. 

Once more : Canon Cook supposes that, whereas 
the neuter rendering prevailed in the ante-Nicene 
ages, the masculine gradually supplanted it after the 
conversion of Constantine, when the altered relations 
between the Church and the world brought with 
them a change of view with regard to the dominion 
of Satan, and consequently with regard to the exe- 
gesis of this passage : 

'After the absorption of large masses,' he writes (p. 12), 
'into the visible Church, the most earnest and influential 
Fathers recognised Satan as an enemy within the camp, lead- 
ing captive many a redeemed soul, and, as such, the object of 
deprecatory petitions. The prayer * Deliver us from that Evil 


One' might then be of intense interest A clear line of 

demarcation should be drawn between the witness of the 
Fathers who wrote before the conversion of the Empire, and 
those who wrote at a time when the Church had received 
within its visible precincts a preponderating mass of half- 
converted or merely nominal Christians.' 

I have not myself noticed any such divergence 
between the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers 
respecting the power of Satan as is here supposed ; 
nor should I expect to find it. During the ages of 
persecution the agency of Satan in alluring men 
from the faith through their fears would impress 
the Christian conscience not less strongly than his 
wiles in seducing them through the blandishments 
of the world at a later date. If the form of the 
temptation was changed, yet the tempter was as 
active in the one period as in the other. But indeed 
we need not waste time in accounting for phenomena 
which are themselves imaginary. The fact which 
Canon Cook thus seeks to explain melts away in 
the light of evidence. He seems indeed to have 
read the history of the exegesis of this passage 
backwards. There is no evidence that the neuter 
rendering was adopted by a single ante-Nicene writer, 
Greek or Latin. The first direct testimony to it 
appears half a century or more after the conversion 
of the Empire. 

To sum up; the earliest Latin Father, and the 


earliest Greek Father, of whose opinions we have any 
knowledge^ both take rov irovrjpov masculine. The 
masculine rendering seems to have been adopted uni- 
versally by the Greek Fathers. At least no authority, 
even of a late date, has been produced for the neuter. 
In the Latin Church the earliest distinct testimony for 
the neuter is S. Augustine at the end of the fourth and 
the beginning of the fifth century. From that time 
forward the neuter gained ground in the Western 
Church till it altogether supplanted the masculine. 


The personality of the tempter does not come 
under discussion here. Whatever may be meant by 
this personality, it is plainly and repeatedly asserted 
in the New Testament elsewhere and in the Gospel 
of S. Matthew more particularly. There is therefore 
no a priori objection to its occurrence in the Lord's 
Prayer. It is not on this ground that Canon Cook 
objects, or could object, to the masculine rendering. 
His objection is of another kind. He supposes that 
the form of the petition, pva-at, y^as cnro rov Trovrjpov, 
when so interpreted, assumes the petitioner to be 
under the power of Satan. He contrasts with this 
assumption the language of S. John, 

'who does not represent the Evil One as a foe, or tyrant, 
from whom the Christian has to be delivered, but as an enemy 


whom even the young men have overcome (i John ii. 13, 14), 
and who is powerful over those only, who abandon themselves 
to his influence (v. 18, 19). As for the Christian, S. John 
assures us, That Evil One toucheth him not' (p. 5). 

He maintains that : 

'The earlier Fathers agree .... with the Scriptural view, 
which looks upon him [Satan] as an enemy who has been 
expelled from the precincts of the Church, whom the Christian 
as such opposes, resists, and overcomes, armed, as S. Paul 
describes him, in the panoply of faith, and safe under the 
protection of his Lord' (p. 12). 

Speaking of S. Athanasius, he writes that he 
' invariably and in the strongest language represents 
the Evil One and his agents as utterly weak, beaten, 
discomfited, deprived of all power, and the object of 
contempt not less than of abhorrence to the Christian 
as such.' 'We can conceive him and his disciples/ 
he adds, ' praying for the utter and final overthrow of 
Satan, for the discomfiture of all who contended 
against the truth under his influence ; but I, for 
one, cannot realise a petition on their part to be 
delivered from his power' (p. 16). 

To those who have read this Father's Life of 
S. Anthony, Canon Cook's statement will, I venture 
to think, appear singularly one-sided. But this by 
the way. I am only concerned with the general 

Happily Canon Cook has saved me all trouble, 


for he has himself supplied a complete answer to his 
own objection. In an earlier page (p. 4) he has 
pointed out the difference between pveo-Qat, etc and 
pvea-Oat, airo, the former preposition 'implying that 
the petitioner is actually under the power of an 
enemy or principle/ which the latter does not. It is 
somewhat strange, after this explicit statement, to 
find Canon Cook again and again arguing as if 
' Deliver us from the Evil One ' were equivalent to 
' Deliver us from the power of the Evil One.' I am 
far from saying that, properly understood, even this 
last form of petition is out of place on the lips of the 
true Christian; but the question need not be discussed 
here, as it lies outside the words of the Lord's Prayer. 
And here I might let the matter drop. But the 
use which Canon Cook has made of I John v. 18, 19 
ought not to pass unnoticed, if only on account of the 
consequences which may follow and have followed 
from similar treatment of the language of Scripture. 
The Apostles and Evangelists very frequently put 
forward the ideal view of the Christian's position. 
His potential achievements are insisted upon without 
qualification of language. 'But any one who appro- 
priates to himself individually this ideal perfection, 
which belongs to the typical Christian, will fall into 
the most perilous errors. We have only to take the 
context of the passage which Canon Cook quotes, if 
L. R. 21 


we would see where this mode of treatment would 
land us: 'Whosoever is begotten of God, sinneth not ; 
but he that is begotten of God, keepeth him [A.V. 
'himself'], and the Evil One toucheth him not' Must 
not the devout Christian then, by parity of reasoning, 
maintain that he is sinless ? Yet, * if we say that we 
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is 
not in us' (i John i. 8). 

But if there are passages which celebrate the 
liberation of the Christian from the dominion of 
Satan, there are also others which warn him that 
Satan is still a terrible foe against whom he must 
exercise all vigilance ' Be sober, be watchful ; your 
adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, 
seeking whom he may devour' (i Pet. v. 8); 'Then 
cometh the Evil One and snatcheth away that which 
hath been sown in his heart' (Matt. xiii. 19). Though 
the enemy may be outside the city, he is watching 
his opportunity to scale the walls or to effect a 
breach. Though the wild beast may be without the 
tent, he is prowling about, ready to seize any chance 
straggler who may cross his path. Why should it be 
thought unreasonable to pray for deliverance from 
such a foe ? Prayer is the armour of the Christian. 

I hope that I have now put the reader in posses- 
sion of reasons which justify the procedure of the 


Revisers. My paper has extended to a greater 
length than I had contemplated when it was com- 
menced. But a certain thoroughness of treatment 
was needed in order to do justice to the case; 
and the importance of the subject will probably be 
accepted as a valid excuse. I must conclude by 
expressing my thankfulness that I have had to deal 
with an adversary so learned and courteous as Canon 





.TT.i. I 


MATT. vi. 34 



I 7 8 

viii. 12 .... 







100, 101, 135 

ix. i 

I2 5 

ii. 4 






x. 4 

153, 155 


I 7 8 


9 8 


96, 135 




135' '75 


I8 4 

iii. i 


xi. 2 




xii. i, 5, 10, ii, 

12 l62 







xiii. 2 






15,16 ... 


288, 291, 

iv. 1,3 


292, 295, 



298, 322 




53. 196 









V. I 



1 88 


47, 122, 131, 

38,39 - 



291, 292, 



296, 298 



42,50 ... 



275' 278, 



295, 298 

xiv. 8 



2/5, 278, 



295, 298 



vi. ii 


xv. 3, 6 



33, 269323 



16, 18 ... 





190, 227 











MATT. xvi. 9, 10... 


MATT. xxv. 30 ... 








4 6 




xxvi. 15 





1 80 



3 6 

1 60 

xvii. r 

I2 4 




I6 9 








14 sq. 

1 86 







xviii. 6, 7 




24 j?. 


69,71 ... 




xxvii. 9 


xix. 8 












r 9 




xx. 2, 9, 10, 13 

184, 185 

xxviii. 19 








xxi. 4 





88, 122 

ii. 15, 16 






xxii. i sq. 




9, 10 ... 


iii. 2, 4 





i5 2 

xxiii. 6 




7,8 ... 

1 80 

iv. \ 



204, 205 






122, 187 

xxiv. 5 


2 9 




v. 13 



X 35 

vi. 3 

I 7 8 













5 I 




xxv. 6 




14^. ... 


vii. 9 






MARKvii. 26 


LuKEiii. 23 





I 7 6 

viii. 19, 20 







176, 177 




176, 177, 17* 

ix. 2 



I 7 8 


1 80 

iv. 5 







in, 113 



x. 18 






vi. 15 


xi. 4 











8 4 

xii. 26 






298, 300 


I8 4 

vii. 4 


xiii. 14 






33.34 .- 


xiv. 5 






45, 46 ... 




viii. 14 


53.54 .- 




66,69 . 


ix. 25 


xv. 6 






x. 35 




xi. 3 

217 260 

xvi. 9 20 ... 




LUKE i. i 



122, 187 


125,178, 186 





xii. 6 







125, 186 

xiii. 6 


ii. n 



1 88 











xv. 8 

1 86, 187 




1 86 



xvi. 6, 7 

1 88 





LUKExvii. i, 2 ... 

I 9 6 

JOHN iv. 5 


xviii. 12 











1 80 

xix. 13 

46, 187, 197 





V. I 


xx. 37 




xxi. 19 




xxii. i 

1 80 





vi. 4 


xxiii. 2 







JI 5 



22 Sq. ...-;' 





1 80 



5 I 


35.39 - 


6 9 


xxiv. 10 


vii. i 

I 79 

JOHN i. 3 

91, 136, 137 




W J 37 









4 o 



I3 6 137 

viii. i ii ... 

3 1 











ix. 2 

1 80 


in, 137 


I 3 I 


22, 30 





x. 16 



112, 115 

xi. 8 

1 80 

2 9 





1 80 

xii. 5 



176, 177 







ii. 6 


4 o 


iii. 2 

1 80 

xiii. 12 




23,25 ... 

80, 8 1 







xiv. 5, 6 



1 80 


56, 59. 





JOHNxiv. 18 


ACTS viii. 16 



56, 59 


6 5 

xv. 3 





56, 59. 6l 

ix. 2 


xvi. 1,4,6 ... 



120, I 7 2 



X. 2 

8 9 





xvii. 3 





275. 279, 

xi. 17 

96, 129 

295, 298 


1 80 

xviii. i ... 


xii. 4 


28,33 - 








xix. 9 










xiii. 14 


xx. 16 

1 80 









xiv. 13 


xxi. 15, 16, 17 

176, 177 

xv. 3 

1 80 



xvi. ii 


ACTS i. 3 

1 60 

3538 .- 




xvii. i 






ii. 3 



8 9 








88, 197 

273i ..- 






xviii. 12 








xix. I 


iii. 6 








I3 2 6 ... 




iv. 25,27 ... 




27,30 ... 




vii. 26 








viii. 5 










ROM. iv. 19 






XX. 2 


v. 9 






xxi. 2 

1 80 

1519 ... 




vi. I sq. 





93. 96 




93, HO 


8 9 

4,6 ... 





93, 96 

3L32 ... 

I8 3 

, 13 -. 


xxii. 24 26 ... 

I8 3 



xxiii. 17 23 ... 








xxiv. 5, 6 






vii. i sq. 


XXV. 22 








xxvi. 24, 25 




xxvii. 12 


viii. 6 






xxviii. 13 





179, 207 









ix. 3 


ROM. 1.29 




ii. i 



89, 174 



x. 9, 13 ... 


12 .S^. 






xi. 2 



1 60 


151* 152 

2 4 








iii. 4,6 



151, 152 

19 *?. ... 

1 10 

xii. 2 






24 26 ... 



292, 298 

iv. 3,9 







51, 117, 118 

INDEX I. 331 



RoM.xiii. n 

9 6 

i COR. xii.2 


xiv. 14 


+ sq. 



69, 74, 75 


140, 141, 175 

xv. 4, 5 








xvi. i 


xiii. 8 



39 49 

9, 12 




xiv. 7 






10 16 ... 

39. 49 









24,29 ... 


i COR. i. 10 






XV. 2 

96, 105 



4 20 ... 

98, 99 





ii. 1315 ... 


24 28 ... 

40, 41 

14. 15 - 




iii. 5 






xvi. 1,2 


iv. 3' 4. 5 - 








v. 9 





295, 2 9 8 

2COR.i. I 


vi. i 6 


3-8 ... 


vii. 5 












viii. 6 

136, 140 



IO, 12 




ix. 3 


ii. 6 










X. 2 


iii. i 






25,27 ... 


5,6 ... 






xi. 2834 

72, 73 





l^sq. ... 






2 COR. iii. 14 

42, 151 

2 COR. xiii. 9, ii... 






iv. 2 


GAL. i. 6 




ii. 7 








16 21 ... 




iii. 3 






v. 6 ii ... 











94, 140 

vi. 9 


iv. 20 




v. 13 


vii. 7 






2 4 




EPH. i. i 


I3i4 . 




viii. 10 12 ... 



46, 114 



ii. 5, 8 


ix. 2 5 


5, 6, 13, 14 




iii. 10 


x. 5 






iv. 1,4, 7 ... 






xi. 3 



IS*. 152 









16 18 ... 


v. 15 


xii. i 


vi. 12 


isq. ... 






296, 298 



PHIL. i. 13 










13,14 ... 


ii. 3 











91, 119 




152, 195 


144, 152 





PHIL. ii. 30 


i TIM. iii. 3 


iii. 2, 3 











30, i99 

iv. 2 


v. 4 







192, 227 

vi. 2 



235* 2 3 6 



COL. i. 13 





92, 136 

2 TIM. i. 7,9 




ii. 19 


ii. 5 


iii. 4 




iv. ii 




TIT. i. 7 


9, 10 




II sq. 


ii. 14 

261, 263, 



267, 268 



iii. 5 


iii. 1,3 










HEB. i. i 



J 95 





ii. 10 


iv. 10 

i49 175 





iii. ii 




iv. 3 






iv. 4 


V. 2 






V. 22 


vi. i 


2THESS.i. 6 




ii. i, 2 


8, 16 ... 


3^- . 


vii. 14 

99, 178 



21 24 ... 



45. 198 

viii. 8 


iii. 2, 3 

275, 288, 



295, 298 

ix. i 




69, 18... 

103, 104 

i TIM. i. 4 




iii. i 


X. I 

104, 130 





HEB. x. 30 


I JOHNiv. 9, IO, 14 

9 2 

xi. 10 


v. 6 






xii. 26 


9, 10 


JAMES i. 15 


18,19 ... 

274, 276, 



291, 296, 

ii. 2,3 


298, 321 



JUDE 12 

149' I5* *53 



REV. i. 4 


iii. 5 




14, 16 


ii. 13 


v. 9 




16 ... 


iii. 12 





44, 170 

i PET. i. 3 






iv. 4 






ii. 4 





263, 268 

v. 5 




vi. 6 

185, iSjSf. 



vii. 5 






2 4 


12,14 ... 


iii. 9 






viii. 10 

J 3 r 

iv. 8 




v. 7 

191, 227 

xi. 9, ii 








xiii. 6 - ... 


2 PET. ii. 1,3 


xiv. 15, 16 




xvi. 10 


iii. 12 


xvii. i 


i JOHN i. 8 


6,7 ... 


ii. i 


xviii. 2 


13,14 ... 

274, 291, 



296, 298 

xix. 9 


iii. 8 


xxi. 3 



274, 278, 

14, 19*7.... 


291, 298 




Abelard on eTrtoi/trtos, 251 sq., -255 
Acts of the Apostles, text of, 33 
^Ethiopia rendering of twio6(rios, 

259; of curb roO irovypov, 301 
Alford (Dean) on Revision, 52, 55, 


ambiguities of expression, 198 sq. 
Ambrose (S.) on ^7rtoi5<7ios, 246 sq. ; 

on OTTO Toy Trovrjpov, 314 
Andre wes (Bp), 12 
Anselm, 251 
Antigenidas, 8 
Antiochene School, 233 
aorist, confused with perfect, 89 sq.; 
its significance in S. Paul, 93 ; 
various misrenderings of, 96 sq. 
Apphia, Appia, 207 
archaisms in the English Version, 
i8 9 sq. 

by, 132 

by and by, 195 

carefulness, 191 

carriages, 193 

chamberlain, 182 

coasts, 194 sq. 

comforter, 58 

debate, 195 

deputy, 1 81 

devotions, 197 

dishonesty, 195 

fetch a compass, 193 

generation, 197 

go about to, 199 

grudge, 195 

high-minded, 195 

instantly, 195 

let, 198 

lewdness, 195 

maliciousness, 195 

minister, 193 

nephew, 194 

occupy, 47, 197 

of, 132 

offend, offence, 196 

prevent, 198 

room, 48, 193 

scrip, 193 

thought, 190 sq. 

writing-table, 192 
Armenian rendering of 

258 ; of dirb TOV irovijpov, 300 
Arnold (Mr M.) quoted, 210 sq. 
article (the definite), neglect of, 
107 sq. ; insertion of, 127 sq. ; 
general ignorance of, 129 sq. 
Asiarchs, 182 
aspirate (Hebrew) omitted in Greek, 


Athanasius (S.) on eTrtoi/o-tos, 232 
Augustine (S.) on Jerome's revision, 


4, 6, 9, 1 6 ; on the heavenly wit- 
nesses, 29; on e7rtoti(Tios, 255; on 
<'nro TOV Trovrjpov, 314 sq., 319 

Authorised Version : historical par- 
allel to, 10 sq,., 269; translators' 
forebodings of, 1 1 ; never autho- 
rised, 1 2 ; gradual reception of, 
13; itself a revision, 15; faulty 
text of, 21 sq. ; distinctions cre- 
ated in, 36 sq. ; distinctions ob- 
literated in, 66 sq. ; errors of 
grammar in, 89 sq. ; errors of 
lexicography in, 148 sq. ; its ca- 
price in proper names, titles, etc., 
163 sq.; archaisms in, 189 sq. ; 
ambiguities of expression in, 198 
sq. ; faulty English in, 202 sq. ; 
editorial errors and misprints in, 
-203 sq. ; corrections in later edi- 
tions of, 143, 204 sq. ; variable 
orthography of, 206 sq.; pure 
English of, 211 sq. 

cubs, adjectives in, 222 

atpeiv, 157 

ClK^pCUOS, 152 

dXXos, 2repos, 83 sq. 
dva.KpLvei.v t ditdnpiffis, 69 sq. 
dvairlTTTeiv, So sq. 
dveveyKeiv, 157 
dffffdpiov, 184 sq. 
avydfriv, 157 
av\-/i, -n-ol/j-vij, 79 

Barjona, 177 sq. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, on 6 irovypos, 

Basil (S.) on tiriofoios, 227, 233 


Bensly, 242 
Bentley quoted, 108 sq. 

Bernard's (S.) controversy with 

Abelard, 251 sq., 254 
besaunt, 187 
Beza, 257 
Bible; see Authorised Version 

Bishops'; 12, 30, 78, 79, 98, 
142, 150, 155, 166, 168, 180, 

181, 183, 201, 203, 205 
Coverdale's ; 29, 79, 142, 150, 

i54> i55 166, 183 

Geneva; 12, 79, 98, 142, 150, 
i55> 166, J 68, 179, 180, 181, 
183, 201; Testament (1557), 
30, 142, 150, 154, 159, 181, 
184; Tomson's Testament, 
203, 257 

Great; 29, 79, 142, 150, 154, 
155, 167, 180, 183 

Rheims; 49, 79, 87, 150, 155, 

182, 188, 200, 201 
Tyndale's; 29, 49, 78, 79, 86, 

87, 89, 90, 135, 142, 150, 154, 

155, 160, 183, 188, 197, 198, 

200, 257, 268 
Wycliffe's (and Wycliffite); 87, 

89, 150, 155. 181, 182, 184, 

187, 1 88, 197, 257 
Breviary, 255 
Peurrdfcw, 158 
/Saxes, 1 88 
(3ii}/j,6s, OvffLo.ffT'fjpiov, 88 

Calvin, 257 

Cassianus, 250 sq. 

Christ and the Christ, 1 1 1 sq. 

Chrysostom (S.) on ^Triotfcrios, 234 

sq.; on dirb TOV Trovypov, 309 
Clementine Homilies on dwb TOV 

trovnpov, 307, 317 
coins, rendering of, 184 sq. 



Cook, Canon, and the Last Petition 

of the Lord's Prayer, 270 sq. 
Corinthians, 2nd Epistle to the ; 

recurrence of words in, 41 sq. 
Coverdale's Bible ; see Bible 
Cretans, Cretes, Cretians, 175 
Cureton, 239 

Cyprian (S.), 29, 244, 312 sq. 
Cyril (S.) of Alexandria; on &ri- 

o&rtos, 236; on Treptotfcrios, 261 
Cyril (S.) of Jerusalem; on ^riotf- 
(Tios, 234; on dtrb TOV irovrjpov, 

KaiecrOai, 131 

Kavavcuos, tHavavinqs, 153 
s, Ka.Tavv(r<reu>, 155 

, 161 
KO\TTOS, ffrijdos, So 
6pos, 1 88 

Kb<pivoi, (rirvpides, 79 
xpiveiv and its compounds, 69 sq. 

, KKTijff6ai, 97 sq. 
, 1 86, 187 
, 1 60 

Damascene (S. John) on 


Damasus, Pope, i, 9 
deaconesses, 127 
didrachma, 186 
Didymus of Alexandria on OLTTO TOV 

irovripov, 309 
digamma, 224 

Dionysius of Alexandria; on tv rig 
277; on ct7r6 roO Trovypov, 


Dionysius Carthusianus, 251 
drachma, 186 
drjfws, Xaoj, 89 
drjvdpiov, 184 sq. 

L. R. 

did, distinguished from #7r<S, 132 sq.; 
its connexion with Inspiration, 
134 sq.; with the doctrine of the 
Word, 135 sq.; misrendered with 
the accusative, 137 sq., 151 

5ici/3oAos, daifjLoviov, 87 sq. 

i, 156 

5oc7ts, ddjprjfjia, 85 sq. 

SouXot, dioucovoi, 79 

Easter, 180 

Egyptian Service-books, 244 

Egyptian Versions ; rendering of 
7ra/>a/c\?7Tos, 61 ; of <77ri\o5es, 152; 
of ^Trtouatos, 243 sq., 257 sq. ; of 
curb TOV Trovrjpov, 277, 297 sq. 

Elias, Elijah, 169, 171 

Ellicott (Bp) on Revision, 20, 55, 

Embolismus, 302 sq. 

English language, present know- 
ledge of the, 2 10 sq. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the ; its desti- 
nation and genuineness, 22 sq. 

Ephrem Syrus, 242 

Evangelists, parallel passages in 
the; 34, 52 sq., 124, 125 sq., 
160, 178 

Evil One, Deliver us from the, 269 

flvai, ylvevBai, 84 sq. 

ek wrongly translated, 139 sq. 

"EXXijis EXX^j'io-TiJs, 174 

tv wrongly translated, 140 sq. 

t^alperos, 264 sq., 267 

e7re/>cr?7/ia, 151 

tirl wrongly translated, 139; the i 
elided in composition, 224 
s, 68 




222, 226 
lTTi.ovffi.os, 217 sq. 

225, 228 

Fidelity in translation, 270 sq. 
Five Clergymen, Revision of the ; 

55. 102 
Fulke's answer to Martin, 167 

Gehenna, Hades, 87 sq. 
gender, change of, disregarded, 77 
Geneva Bible, Testament; see Bible 
Gothic Version of tiriovffios, 258; of 

diro TOV irovrjpov, 300 
Greek, Grecian, Greece, Grecia, 174 
Greek forms of Hebrew names, 171 

Greek scholarship in England, 208 

Gregory the Great on the Latin Ver- 

sions, 10 
Gregory Nyssen on ^riovVios, 233; 

on cforo TOV Trovrjpov, 309 
Grote (Prof.), 205 
gutturals (Hebrew), how dealt with 

in Greek, 172 
67 sq. 
vs, 182 

Hammond, 303, 304 

Hare (Archdn), 56 

Hebrews, Epistle to the ; date of, 

Hebrews, Gospel of the ; its origin 

and value, 237 sq. ; rendering of 

^rioimos, 237 
Heloise, 251 
hendiadys, 144 

Hilary (S.) on tiriovffios, 255 ; on 

OLTTO TOV irovypov, 314 
hypallage, 143 

idols of the cave, market-place, 102 

imperfect tense mistranslated, 106 

Isidore of Pelusium on dirb TOV 

Trovripov, 309 
Isidore of Seville, 13 
Ismenias, 9 
Italic, Old, the title, 293 ; see Latin, 


lepov, vaos, 88 
lepoffv\iv t 1 60 
IffTavai, 156 

Jacob of Sarug, 241 sq. 

James, Jacob, 175 

Jeremy, Jeremias, 175 

Jerome (S.) revises the Latin Bible, 
i ; his detractors and opponents, 
2 sq., 16; version of Book of Jo- 
nah, 4; corrects the text, 4 sq., 
17, 26; does not translate but re- 
vise, 6; his Jewish teachers, 6 sq. ; 
his devotion to the work, 7 sq. ; 
gradual reception of his Version, 
9 sq., 17 sq.; his rendering of ira- 
pd/cX^ros, 6 1 ; of ^7rioi/<noj, 248 sq. ; 
of irepiovffios, 249, 261 sq., 264 sq. 

Jerusalem, spelling of, 172 

Jesus, Joshua, 175 

Jewry, 179 

Johanan, John, etc., 176 sq. 

John, the father of S. Peter, 176 sq. 

John (S.), disciples of, 31 

John (S.), Gospel of: its genuine- 
ness, 22; minute traits in, 81, 120; 



coincidences with the Revelation, 
50, 62 sq. ; with the First Epistle, 
50, 56 sq., 62, 280; later than the 
other Gospels, 101; doctrine of 
the Evil One in, 279 sq., 319 sq. 

John (S.), Apocalypse of: broken 
syntax of, 147 sq.; see /<?>& (S.) f 
Gospel of 

Jona, two distinct names, 177 

Jude, Juda, Judah, Judas, 178 

Juvencus, 244 sq. 

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 23 sq. 

Latin, Old ; false readings in, 2 sq. ; 
retained in Service-books, 14 ; ren- 
dering of irapdK\T)TO$, 60; of ffiri.- 
AciSes, 153; of ^riouo-tos, 244 sq. ; 
of Trepiovfftos, 267 ; of rov irovrjpov, 
276, 293 sq., 311; various read- 
ing in the Lord's Prayer, 232 

Latin Vulgate: see Jerome (S.) 

Latinisms, 189 sq., 200, 210 sq. 

Lindisfarne Gospels, 257 

Liturgies, interpretation of dirb rov 
Trovrjpou in the, 301 sq. 

Lord's Prayer, the early use of, 218 
sq. ; see also Appendices (passim) 

Lucas, Luke, 175 

Luke (S.), Gospel of: two editions 
of, 31 sq.; its classical language, 
124, 1 86 

Luther's Bible, 30, 257 

\v\vos, <f)ws, 130 sq. 

Magdalene, spelling and pronuncia- 
tion of, 173 sq. 

Maldonatus, 256 

malus as a designation of the Evil 
One, 294 sq. 

Marcus, Mark, 175 

Mark (S.), Gospel of: the conclu- 

sion, 31 
Marsh (Mr) on revision, etc., 102 

sq., 209, 212, 214 
Martene, 305 
Martin's (Gregory) attack on English 

Bibles, 166 sq. 
Mary, Miriam, 175 
Matthew (S.), Gospel of: peculiari- 

ties of language in, 100 sq., 124; 

its relation to the Gospel of the 

Hebrews, 237 
measure, in what sense used, 186, 

187 sq. 

Memphitic : see Egyptian Versions 
metaphors obscured, 158 sq. 
Milman (Dean), error of, 252 
modius, 187 
Mount, Sermon on the ; its locality, 

123 sq. 

Mozarabic Liturgy, 304 
Minister's Latin Bible, 166 
fdpiuva, fjiepifu>av, 190 sq., 227; dis- 

tinguished from /iAeu/, 191 
/ierdvoia, /xera^iAeta, 85 
/AerpTjTiys, 187 

/>ixa<r0cu, fJLOixevdfjvai, 78 sq. 
86 sq. 

Neubauer, 292 

Nicene Creed, misunderstanding of, 

136 sq. 

Nicolas of Lyra, 251 
J/^TTIOI, 7rat5/ct, 82 
s, 6 vofjios, no 

official titles, rendering of, 180 sq. 

Origen, on ^irioixnos, 217 sq., 229 
sq.; on irepiovffios, 260 sq.; on 
dird rov Trovr/pov, 308 ; his method 



of interpretation, 231; general 
adoption of his interpretations, 
232 sq. 

686s (77), 115 sq. 

oI5a, yivwffKW, eirlo'Tafj.a.i, etc., 67 sq. 

6i>ofjLa (rb), 119 

dirrdveo'dai, 144 

tyri (ty* 117 sq. 

opos (rb), 123 sq. 

-oi/crioj, adjectives in ; derived from 
-ay, 223, 266; from oixria, 223 sq. 
ovrws, 8 1 

Papias, 31, 207 

paronomasia, 65 sq. 

Paul (S.); his use of the aorist, 93 

sq. ; his vision, 99 sq. ; his teach- 

ing of redemption, 109 ; his con- 

ception of law, no; his thorn in 

the flesh, 159 
Payne Smith (Dean), 293 
peculiar, 267 sq. 
peculium, peculiaris, 266 sq. 
perfect, confused with the aorist, 

91 sq.; misrendered, 98 sq. 
Peshito ; see Syriac Versions 
Peyron, 299 
Pfeiffer, 247, 251 
Phenice, Phcenix, Phoenicia, 180 
pleroma, the, 114 
Polycarp, reference to the Lord's 

Prayer in, 316 
prepositions ; in composition neglect- 

ed, 75 sq. ; variation of, disregard- 

ed, 77; mistranslations of, I32sq. 
present tense, mistranslated, 103 sq. 
Plumptre (Dean) on revision, 20, 

proper names ; how to be dealt with, 

163 sq. ; should conform in the 

O. T. and N. T., 168 sq. ; whether 
to be translated or reproduced, 
179 sq. 

TTCUS, servant, 157 

irapdK\r}Tos, 56 sq. 

Trapeo-ts, 150 sq. 

Treptoucrictayios, 262 

Tre/noua-tos, 218, 230, 260 sq. 

Trepnroir)<n$, 263 

TT\OIOV, rb irXoiov, 125 

irvi>/ji.a, wind, spirit, 64 

iro\\ol, ol Tro\\oi, etc., 109 sq. 

irovrjpbs (6), Trovripbv (rb} t 274 sq. 

Trpay/j-a (rb), 119 sq. 

(6), 113 sq. 

Trrepvyiov (TO), 12 1 

trvXwves, 161 

irwpovv, Tr&pucris, 151 

<f)atveiv t <f>aLvecr6ai t 144 sq. 

<paivo[ uv, (patvofJiai elvai, 145 


, (f>6oyy6s, 82 

Rabbi, Rabboni, 180 

Rahab, spelling of, 172 

redemption, 109 

Revision (the new) of the English 
Bible; historical parallel to, 10 
sq., 269; gloomy forebodings of, 
14 sq. ; exaggerated views of, 15 ; 
antagonism to, 16; disastrous re- 
sults anticipated from, 17; ques- 
tion of acceptance of, 18 sq. ; need 
of, 19 sq. (passim) ; prospects of, 
207 sq. ; conservative tendencies 
of rules affecting, 212 sq.; liberal 
conditions of, 214 sq.; favourable 
circumstances attending, 215 

Roberts (Dr), 238 



Rome, bishops of; their use of the 

Latin Versions, 9 sq. 
Rufinus, 4 

, &Tr6, 273 

Sahidic : see Egyptian Versions 
salvation, how regarded in the N. 

T., 104 sq. 
Saron : see Sharon 
Schiller-Szinessy, 285 
second Advent, 115 sq. 
Septuagint, its evidence to N. T. 

theological terms weighed, 281 


shamefaced, shamefast, 206 
Sharon, the, 121, 171 sq. 
Shechinah, ffKrjvfi, 62 sq. 
shibboleth, 171 
sower, parable of the, 53 sq. 
Stanley (Dean), 123 
stater, 186 
substantia, 245 
Suicer, 229 
supersubstantialis, 232, 246, 248 

sq.,5i sq. 
Symmachus, 266, 267 
synonymes, 67, 79 sq. 
Syrian service-books, 242 
Syrian Versions : 

Curetonian; rendering of wapd- 
K\TJTOS, 61; of tiriovffios, 238, 
241, 242, 257 ; of ctTrd rou iroyrj- 
pov, 292 sq. 

Jerusalem ; rendering of tiriotaios, 

Peshito ; rendering of Tropa/cXT/ros, 
61; of Kapcu'cuos and Xcwcu'cuos, 
154; of tirioixrios, 239, 242, 257; 
of airb TOU irovypov, 291 sq. 

Philoxenian (Harclean); render- 

ing of o-TTiXdSes, 153; of tmot- 
fftos, 240 sq. 

, 162 
ffdrov, 1 88 

i t 161 

ri, <TKI]VOVI>, 62 sq. 
(TTre/couXarwp, 183 

i, (TTTiXaSes, 152 sq. 

, 158 
0'i'Xa'ywyeu', 151 
ff(>)6fj.ei>oi (of), 104 sq. 
ilpJD, 262 sq. 

talent, 187 

Targums and 6 7roi^p6s, 284 sq. 
tenses wrongly rendered, 89 sq. 
Tertullian, 244, 294, 310 sq., 317 
Teutonic Versions of the Lord's 

Prayer, 256 

text, importance of a correct, 25 sq. 
textual criticism, its tendencies, 21 


Theodoret on firiov<rios, 236 
Theophylact on eTrtoutrtos, 236 
Tholuck, 219, 229 
Thomas, Acts of, 241 
Trench (Abp) on the Authorised 

Version, 20, 46, 55, 80, 150, 155, 

157, 169, 191, 194, 210 
Trent, Council of, 17, 256 
Tyndale's Bible : see Bible 
delov (TO), 161 
, 118 


Urbane, 174 
(fXi;, 156 
viro, 5id, 133 

various readings, 30 sq. 



Versions, translation of &irb TOV TTO- Witnesses, the Three Heavenly, 27 

vtjpov in the, 290 sq. sq. 

Victorinus, on ^7rtoi5<nos, 245; on wrath, the, 117 sq. 

7re/>totf(Ttos, 261 Wright (Prof.), 239, 241, 242 

Vulgate ; see Jerome (S.) Wycliffe's Bible : see Bible 

wages of labourers, 184 sq. 
way, the, 185 sq. 
Westcott (Bp), 13, 126 

Zurich Latin Bible, 30, 257 
faa, dijpla., 80 


St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, 

with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. loth Edition. 8vo. 


St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. A Revised 
Text, with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. 9th Edition. 
8vo. us. 

St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to 
Philemon. A Revised Text, with Introduction, 
Notes and Dissertations, pth Edition. 8vo. iis. 

Primary Charge. Two Addresses, delivered to the 

Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, 1882. 8yo. is. 

The Apostolic Fathers. Part I. St Clement of 
Rome. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, 
Dissertations, and Translations. 2 vols., 8vo. 32*. 

The Apostolic Fathers. Part II. St Ignatius to 
St Polycarp. Revised Texts, with Introductions, 
Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 3 vols. 2nd Edition. 
Demy 8vo. 48^. 

A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese 

of Durham, Nov. 25th, 1886. Demy 8vo. 2s. 

Essays on the Work entitled " Supernatural 
Religion." 8vo. IQS. 6d. 

Apostolic Fathers. Abridged Edition. With short 
Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translation. 8vo. 

[In the Press. 

Uniform Edition of 

Crown 8vo., Cloth. 6s. each. 
Leaders in the Northern Church. New Edition. 

\Jwt published. 

Ordination Addresses and Counsels to Clergy. 

New Edition. 

Cambridge Sermons. 

Sermons preached in St Paul's Cathedral. 
Sermons on Special Occasions. \In the Press. 



Just Ready. Globe 8vo. 6s. 

THE WEST. By BROOKE Foss WESTCOTT, D.D., D.C.L., Lord Bishop of 
Durham, Honorary Fellow of Trinity and King's Colleges, Cambridge. 
TfMES : " Their scholarly execution, their graceful style, their devout temper, 

and their wealth of suggestion and instruction, should render these masterly essays 

as welcome as if they were new to all serious readers." 

SCOTSMAN:" Readers of all shades of opinion will recognise in the volume . 

a work of high excellence, and find in it everywhere evidence of copious learning and 

sympathetic and penetrative insight." 

8vo. Cloth. 
THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes. 

Second Edition. izs. f>d. 


Notes and Essays. 14^. 

CLASSICAL REVIEW:" It would be difficult to find in the whole range of 
exegetical literature a volume at the same time so comprehensive and so compact It 
possesses characteristics which . will command for it the permanent attention of 

Crown 8vo. Cloth. 

Edition. IQJ. 6d. 


Seventh Edition. los. f>d. 


THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. Tenth Edition. i8mo. 4*. 6d. 


mons. 4*. &/. 

THE HISTORIC FAITH. Third Edition. 6s. 



CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. Second Edition. 6*. 



GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. 

THE' VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Sermons preached during Holy 

Week, 1888, in Hereford Cathedral. 3*. 6d. 

moriam J. B. DA zs. 
ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 

Crown 8vo. 

Text. 2 vols. ioj. &/. each. Vol. I. Text. Vol. II. The Introduction and 



Edition for Schools. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr HORT. 
41. 6d. ; roan, $s. bd. ; morocco, 6s. 6d. 


April 1891 

A Catalogue ,^ mflm 


Theological Works 

published by 


Bedford Street, Strand, London 




History of the Bible ..... i 

Biblical History . I 

The Old Testament ...... I 

The New Testament 3 







April 1891. 


tTbe Bible 


THE ENGLISH BIBLE : An External and Critical History of the 
various English Translations of Scripture. By Prof. JOHN EADIE. 
2 vols. 8vo. 283. 

COTT. loth Edition. i8mo. 45. 6d. 


BIBLE LESSONS. By Rev. E. A. ABBOTT. Crown 8vo. 43. 6d. 

trated. Crown 8vo. 53. 

2nd Edition. Globe 8vo. 23. 6d. 

H. GASKOIN. i8mo. is. each. Part I. Old Testament ; II. New 
Testament ; III. Three Apostles. 

Canon MACLEAR. With Four Maps. i8mo. 43. 6d. 

ing the connection of the Old and New Testament. By the same. 
i8mo. 55. 6d. 

the same. i8mo. is. 

the same. i8mo. is. 


By C. M. YONGE. Globe 8vo. is. 6d. each ; also with comments, 
35. 6d. each. First Series : GENESIS TO DEUTERONOMY. Second 
PROPHETS. Fourth Series : THE GOSPEL TIMES. Fifth Series : 


The Old Testament continued. 

Edition. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

By the same. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

The Pentateuch 

Translated by PHILIP H. WICKSTEED, M.A. 8vo. 145. 

The Psalms 

FORBES. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 

GOLDEN TREASURY PSALTER. The Student's Edition. 
Being an Edition with briefer Notes of "The Psalms Chrono- 
logically Arranged by Four Friends." i8mo. 33. 6d. 


Amended Version, with Historical Introductions and Explanatory 
Notes. By Four Friends. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. net. 

THE PSALMS. With Introductions and Critical Notes. By A. C. 
JENNINGS, M.A., and W. H. LOWE, M.A. In 2 vols. 2nd 
Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. each. 

PSALMS. By Rev. J. F. THRUPP 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 2is. 


ISAIAH XL. LXVI. With the Shorter Prophecies allied to it 
By MATTHEW ARNOLD. With Notes. Crown 8vo. 55. 

ISAIAH OF JERUSALEM. In the Authorised English Version, with 
Introduction, Corrections, and Notes. By the same. Cr.Svo. 45. 6d. 

A BIBLE -READING FOR SCHOOLS. The Great Prophecy of 
Israel's Restoration (Isaiah xl.-lxvi.) Arranged and Edited for 
Young Learners. By the same. 4th Edition. i8mo. is. 

and Prophetical ; including a Revised English Translation. By 
T. R. BIRKS. 2nd Edition. 8vo. I2s. 6d. 

By T. K. CHEYNE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 


ARIAH, Hebrew and LXX. By W. H. LOWE, M.A. 8vo. los. 6d. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT. Essay on the Right Estimation of MS. 

Evidence in the Text of the New Testament. By T. R. BIRKS. 

Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
THE MESSAGES OF THE BOOKS. Being Discourses and 

Notes on the Books of the New Testament. By Yen. Archdeacon 

FARRAR. 8vo. 145, 

Considered as a Proof of its Genuineness, with an Appendix on 

the Oldest Authorities used in the Formation of the Canon. By 

C. H. HOOLE. 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

are appended Letters to the Guardian on the Lord's Prayer. By 

Bishop LIGHTFOOT. Crown 8vo. [In the Press. 


2nd Edition. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. I2s. 



CENTURIES. By Right Rev. BISHOP WESTCOTT. 6th Edition. 

Crown 8vo. los. 6d. 

Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT, D.D., and Prof. F. J. A. 

HORT, D.D. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. each. Vol. I. 

Text ; II. Introduction and Appendix. 

Schools. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT, D.D., and F. 

J. A. HORT, D.D. I2mo, cloth, 45. 6d. ; i8mo, roan, red edges, 

Ss. 6d. ; morocco, gilt sdges, 6s. 6d. 


in the Text of the Revised Version. By Rev. E. A. ABBOTT and 

W. G. RUSHBROOKE. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

SYNOPTICON : An Exposition of the Common Matter of the Synop- 
tic Gospels. By W. G. RUSHBROOKE. Printed in Colours. In 

Six Parts, and Appendix. 410. Part I, 35. 6d. Parts II and 

III, 7s. Parts IV, V, and VI, with Indices, IDS. 6d. Appendices, 

los. 6d. Complete in I vol. 355. 

By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 7th Ed. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. 

ARTHUR WRIGHT. Crown 8vo. 55. 
St. Matthew 


as Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Intro- 
duction and Notes by Rev. A. SLOMAN, M. A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
CHOICE NOTES ON ST. MATTHEW, drawn from Old and New 

Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. (St. Matthew and St. Mark in I 

vol. 95. ) 


St. Mark 

Being the Outlines of the Life of our Lord as given by St. Mark, with 
additions from the Text of the other Evangelists. Edited, with Notes 
and Vocabulary, by Rev. A. CALVERT, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

CHOICE NOTES ON ST. MARK, drawn from Old and New 
Sources. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. (St. Matthew and St. Mark in I vol. 95.) 

St. Luke 


as Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Introduction 

and Notes by Rev. J. BOND, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
CHOICE NOTES ON ST. LUKE, drawn from Old and New 

Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

of Lectures on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. D. MAURICE. 

3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
St. John 

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. By F. D. MAURICE. 8th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
CHOICE NOTES ON ST. JOHN, drawn from Old and New 

Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Being the Greek Text as 

Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Explanatory 

Notes by T. E. PAGE, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. 


OF THE WORLD. Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By 

Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 
Of St. Paul 


COLOSSIANS, AND PHILEMON. With Introductions and 

Notes. By Rev. J. LL. DAVIES. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 75. 6d. 


EADIE. 8vo. I2s. 

THE CORINTHIANS. Greek Text, with Commentary. By 

Rev. W. KAY. 8vo. 93. 

Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By Bishop 

LIGHTFOOT. loth Edition. 8vo. 125. 

Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By the same. 

9th Edition. 8vo. I2S. 

PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, etc. By the 

same. 9th Edition. 8vo. I2s. 


Of St. Paul continued. 

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. For English Readers. Part I, con- 
taining the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. By Very Rev. C. 
J. VAUGHAN. 2nd Edition. 8vo. Sewed, is. 6d. 

tion, Paraphrase, and Notes for English Readers. By the same. 
Crown 8vo. 55. 

with English Notes. By the same. 7th Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Of St. James 

ST. JAMES' EPISTLE. The Greek Text, with Introduction and 

Notes. By Rev. JOSEPH MAYOR, M.A. 8vo. [In the Press. 
Of St. John 


Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes. 

By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 123. 6d. 
To the Hebrews 



Crown 8vo. 6s. 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. English Text, with Com- 
mentary. By the same. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 

Notes and Essays. By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 8vo. 145. 


2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

GAN. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 

Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. ics. 6d. 


2nd Edition. 4to. 255. 

Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

be Cburcb of Englanb 

Catechism of 


OF ENGLAND. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. i8mo. is. 6d. 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND, with Scripture Proofs for Junior 
Classes and Schools. By the same. i8mo. 6d. 


Catechism of continued. 

THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, with Prayers and Devo- 
tions. By the Rev. Canon MACLEAR. 32mo. 6d. 

Coloured Floral Design to each Collect. Crown 8vo. 125. 



they? By Prof. E. A. FREEMAN. 4th Edition." Crown 8 vo. is. 
DISESTABLISHMENT: or, A Defence of the Principle of a 

National Church. By GEORGE HARWOOD. 8vo. 125. 


Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

AND TITHES. By the same. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 

Dissent in its Relation to 

LAND. By Rev. G. H. CURTEIS. Bampton Lectures for 1871. 
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Holy Communion 


COMMON PRAYER, with Select Readings from the Writings 

of the Rev. F. D. MAURICE. Edited by Bishop COLENSO. 6th 

Edition. i6mo. 2s. 6d. 
BEFORE THE TABLE : An Inquiry, Historical and Theological, 

into the Meaning of the Consecration Rubric in the Communion 

Service of the Church of England. By Very Rev. J. S. HowsoN. 

8vo. 7s. 6d. 
FIRST COMMUNION, with Prayers and Devotions for the newly 

Confirmed. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. 32010. 6d. 

FIRST COMMUNION, with Prayers and Devotions. By the 

same. 32mo. 2s. 



MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d. 

By the same. i8mo. \In the Press. 


Rev. F. PROCTER. i8th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

COMMON PRAYER. By Rev. F. PROCTER and Rev. Canon 

MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d. 


ENGLAND. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 4th Edition. 

Fcap. Svo. 6s. 


LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN. Nov. 21, 1890. By His 
Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 8vo. is. 6d. net. 

Devotional Boo fee 

TO MY SISTER-MOURNERS. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

IMITATIO CHRISTI, LIBRI IV. Printed in Borders after Holbein, 
Diirer, and other old Masters, containing Dances of Death, Acts of 
Mercy, Emblems, etc. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Kingsley (Charles). OUT OF THE DEEP: WORDS 

FOR THE SORROWFUL. From the writings of CHARLES 

KINGSLEY. Extra fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 
DAILY THOUGHTS. Selected from the Writings of CHARLES 

KINGSLEY. By his Wife. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
FROM DEATH TO LIFE. Fragments of Teaching to a Village 

Congregation. With Letters on the "Life after Death." Edited 

by his Wife. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Maclear (Rev. Canon). A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION 




DEVOTIONS. 32mo. 6d. 

BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 32010. 2s. 

Maurice (Frederick Denison). LESSONS OF HOPE. Readings 
from the Works of F. D. MAURICE. Selected by Rev. J. LL. 
DAVIES, M.A. Crown 8vo. 55. 

Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. New Edition. i8mo. 35. 6d. 


Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 
Welby- Gregory (The Hon. Lady). LINKS AND CLUES. 

2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Westcott (Rt. Rev. B. F., Bishop of Durham). THOUGHTS 

ON REVELATION AND LIFE. Selections from the Writings 

of Bishop WESTCOTT. Edited by Rev. S. PHILLIPS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Wilbraham (Frances M.) IN THE SERE AND YELLOW 


AND YOUNG. Globe 8vo. 33. 6d. 

By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 


1biaton> of tbe Cbristian Cburcb 

Church (Dean). THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Twelve 

Years, 1833-45. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. 
Cunningham (Rev. John). THE GROWTH OFTHE CHURCH 


Hardwick (Archdeacon). A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN 

CHURCH. Middle Age. Ed. by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

REFORMATION. Revised by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. 


TIME. 2 vols. 8vo. 255. 

CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 
Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff). THE CHURCH 



Crown 8vo. ios. 6d. 

OXFORD MOVEMENT. Portrait. 8vo. 145. 


THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. A Critical Account of their 
Genuine Writings, and of their Doctrines. By Professor JAMES 
DONALDSON. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 
Works of the Greek and Latin Fathers 

Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and 
Translations. By Bishop LIGHTFOOT. 2 vols. 8vo. 325. 

CARP. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and 
Translations. By the same. 3 vols. 2nd Edition. Demy 8vo. 485. 

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With Short 
Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translation. By the 
same. 8vo. [Nearly ready. 

THE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS. A Dissertation, includ- 
ing a Discussion of its Date and Authorship. Together with the 
Greek Text, the Latin Version, and a New English Translation and 
Commentary. By Rev. W. CUNNINGHAM. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 

ture and Tradition. II. On the " Constantinopolitan " Creed 
and other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century. By FEN TON 
JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D. 8vo. 75. 6d. 


COLLEGE. i8mo. 2s. 6d. 

Palgrave (Prof. F. T.) ORIGINAL HYMNS. 3rd Edition. 
i8mo. is. 6d. 

Selborne (Roundell, Earl of) 

THE BOOK OF PRAISE. From the best English Hymn Writers. 

i8mo. 45. 6d. 
A HYMNAL. Chiefly from The Book of Praise. In various sizes. 

A. In Royal 32mo, cloth limp. 6d. B. Small i8mo, larger 

type, cloth limp. is. C. Same Edition, fine paper, cloth, is. 6d. 

An Edition with Music, Selected, Harmonised, and Composed by 

JOHN HULLAH. Square i8mo. 33. 6d. 

Compiled by M. A. WOODS. i8mo. is. 6d. 

Sermons, Xectures, Hb&resses, anb 

(See also 'Bible,' ' Church of England,' ' Fathers. 1 ) 

Abbot (Francis) 

SCIENTIFIC THEISM. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
THE WAY OUT OF AGNOSTICISM : or, The Philosophy of 
Free Religion. Crown 8vo. 43. 6d. 

Abbott (Rev. E. A.) 

OXFORD SERMONS. 8vo. 73. 6d. 
PHILOMYTHUS. An Antidote against Credulity. A discussion 

of Cardinal Newman's Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles. Crown 

8vo. 33. 6d. 

Ainger (Rev. Alfred, Canon of Bristol). SERMONS PREACHED 
IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

Baines (Rev. Edward). SERMONS. With a Preface and 
Memoir, by ALFRED BARRY, D.D., late Bishop of Sydney. Crown 
8vo. 6s. 

Barry (Rt. Rev. A., Bishop of Sydney). FIRST WORDS IN 
AUSTRALIA : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 53. 

CATECHISING, PREACHING, ETC. Edited, with a Preface, 
by Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. 


Bethune-Baker (J. F.) 

8vo. 2s. 6d. 

Binnie (Rev. William). SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Birks (Thomas Rawson) 

JUDGMENT. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 53. 
a Review of Ten Sermons on the Nature and Effects of Faith, by 
JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D., late Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and 
Leighlin. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
SUPERNATURAL REVELATION : or, First Principles of Moral 

Theology. 8vo. 8s. 
Brooks (Rev. Phillips) 

THE CANDLE OF THE LORD, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 


8vo. 6s. 

TWENTY SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
TOLERANCE. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. 3 s. 6d. 
Brunton (T. Lauder). THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE. 

With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 
Butler (Archer) 


8vo. 8s. 

Butler (Rev. George). SERMONS PREACHED IN CHEL- 
Calderwood (Rev. Prof.) 


8vo. 55. 

Campbell (Dr. John M'Leod) 

THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 6th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 

Introductory Narrative, by his Son, DONALD CAMPBELL, M.A. 

Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

THOUGHTS ON REVELATION. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. 

Compiled from Sermons preached at Row, in the years 1829-31. 

Crown 8vo. 55. 


Canterbury (His Grace Edward White, Archbishop of) 

BOY-LIFE : its Trial, its Strength, its Fulness. Sundays in 

Wellington College, 1859-73. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE SEVEN GIFTS. Addressed to the Diocese of Canterbury in 

his Primary Visitation. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
CHRIST AND HIS TIMES. Addressed to the Diocese of Canter- 
bury in his Second Visitation. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
BURY. Written at the request of the Archdeacons and Rural 
Deans. Dec. 1890. 8vo, sewed, id. 
Carpenter (Rt. Rev. W. Boyd, Bishop of Winchester) 

TRUTH IN TALE. Addresses, chiefly to Children. Crown 8vo. 

45. 6d. 

Lectures, 1887. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Church (Dean) 

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Twelve Years, 1833-45. 8vo. 

I2s. 6d. net. 

THE GIFTS OF CIVILISATION, and other Sermons and Lectures. 

2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Sermons. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

ADVENT SERMONS. 1885. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

APOSTLES' CREED. Extra fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. 
LARGER CHARITY. Crown 8vo. 55. 
Cooke (Josiah P., Jun.) RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY. 

Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

CONGREGATIONS IN INDIA. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 
CHRISTIAN BELIEF. The Boyle Lectures, 1884. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
Davies (Rev. J. Llewelyn) 

THE GOSPEL AND MODERN LIFE. 2nd Edition, to which is 
added Morality according to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

2S. 6d. 



Davies (Rev. J. Llewelyn) continued. 

THE CHRISTIAN CALLING. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 
35. 6d. 

A Miscellany of Brief Papers touching the Relation of Religion to 
Life. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Dnunmond (Prof. James). INTRODUCTION TO THE 

STUDY OF THEOLOGY. Crown 8vo. 55. 
ECCE HOMO. A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ. 

20th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. 
Ellerton (Rev. John). THE HOLIEST MANHOOD, AND 

FAITH AND CONDUCT : An Essay on Verifiable Religion. Crown 

8vo. 75. 6d. 
Farrar (Ven. F. W., Archdeacon of Westminster) 

MERCY AND JUDGMENT. A few last words on Christian Eschat- 

ology. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. 
THE FALL OF MAN, and other Sermons. 5th Edition. Crown 

8vo. 6s. 

SEEKERS AFTER GOD. Crown Svo. 6s. 
THE SILENCE AND VOICES OF GOD. University and other 

Sermons, 7th Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. 

IN THE DAYS OF THY YOUTH. Sermons on Practical Subjects, 

preached at Marlborough College, gth Edition. Crown Svo. gs. 

ETERNAL HOPE. Five Sermons, preached in Westminster Abbey. 

28th Thousand. Crown Svo. 6s. 
EPHPHATHA: or, The Amelioration of the World. Sermons 

preached at Westminster Abbey. Crown Svo. 6s. 
SERMONS AND ADDRESSES delivered in America. Crown Svo. 

7s. 6d. 

Lectures for 1870. 7th Edition. Crown Svo. 55. 
SAINTLY WORKERS. Five Lenten Lectures. 3rd Edition. 

Crown Svo. 6s. 

Lectures, 1885. Svo. i6s. 

OF HIS ORIGIN. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. 
Forbes (Rev. Granville). THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE 

PSALMS. Crown Svo. 6s. 6d. 

Fraser (Bishop). SERMONS. Edited by Rev. JOHN W. 
DIGGLE. 2 vols. Crown Svo. 6s. each. 


Hamilton (John) 

ON TRUTH AND ERROR. Crown 8vo. 53. 

ARTHUR'S SEAT: or, The Church of the Banned. Crown 

8vo. 6s. 
ABOVE AND AROUND : Thoughts on God and Man. 1 2mo. 2s. 6d. 

Hardwick (Archdeacon). CHRIST AND OTHER MAS- 
TERS. 6th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

Hare (Julius Charles) 


by Dean PLUMPTRE. Crown 8vo. 73. 6d. 

Introductory Notices by Prof. MAURICE and Dean STANLEY. 

Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 

HARE and JULIUS CHARLES HARE. With a Memoir and Two 

Portraits. i8mo. 43. 6d. 

Harper (Father Thomas, S. J.) THE METAPHYSICS OF THE 
SCHOOL. In 5 vols. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. i8s. each. 
Vol. III. Part I. I2s. 

Harris (Rev. G. C.) SERMONS. With a Memoir by 
CHARLOTTE M. YONGE, and Portrait. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

Hervey (Rt. Rev. Lord A., Bishop of Bath and Wells). THE 
CHRIST. 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

Button (R. H.) 


niingworth (Rev. J. R.) SERMONS PREACHED IN A 
COLLEGE CHAPEL. Crown 8vo. 53. 

Jacob (Rev. J. A.) BUILDING IN SILENCE, and other 

Sermons. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 
James (Rev. Herbert). THE COUNTRY CLERGYMAN 

AND HIS WORK. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Jeans (Rev. G. E.) HAILEYBURY CHAPEL, and other 
Sermons. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 

JeUett (Rev. Dr.) 

THE ELDER SON, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. 

LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. ;s. 6d. 


Kingsley (Charles) 


8vo. 35. 6d. 

THE WATER OF LIFE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

THE EARTH. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
SERMONS FOR THE TIMES. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
GOOD NEWS OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

8vo. 35. 6d. 

DISCIPLINE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d, 
WESTMINSTER SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
ALL SAINTS' DAY, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
Kynaston (Rev. Herbert, D.D.) SERMONS PREACHED IN 

Lightfoot (Bishop) 


in the Diocese of Durham. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Crown 8vo. 6s. 

CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

8vo. 6s. 

8vo. [In the Press. 


DIOCESE OF DURHAM, 25th Nov. 1886. Demy 8vo. 2s. 
gion." 8vo. los. 6d. 
Maclaren (Rev. Alexander) 


Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. 

A SECOND SERIES OF SERMONS. ;th Ed. Fcap. SVG. 45. 6d. 
A THIRD SERIES. 6th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. 
WEEK-DAY EVENING ADDRESSES. 4th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 

2S. 6d. 


8vo. 45. 6d. 
Macmillan (Rev. Hugh) 

BIBLE TEACHINGS IN NATURE. I5th Ed. Globe 8vo. 6s. 

ALLEGORY. 5th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. 
THE MINISTRY OF NATURE. 8th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. 
THE SABBATH OF THE FIELDS. 6th Edition. Globe 8vo. 


THE MARRIAGE IN CANA. Globe 8vo. 6s. 
TWO WORLDS ARE OURS. 3rd Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s- 
THE OLIVE LEAF. Globe 8vo. 6s. 


ING : AN ESSAY. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

IN CHRIST. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 
Maurice (Frederick Denison) 


THE LORD'S PRAYER. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

THE CONSCIENCE. Lectures on Casuistry. 3rd Ed. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. 

SCRIPTURES. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. 6th Edition. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. 
HISTORY. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

LEARNING AND WORKING. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 
MANDMENTS. i8mo. is. 

THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Milligan (Rev. Prof. W.) THE RESURRECTION OF OUR 

LORD. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. 
Moorhouse (Rt. Rev. J., Bishop of Manchester) 
JACOB : Three Sermons. Extra fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. Its Conditions, Secret, and 

Results. Crown 8vo. 35. net. 

Mylne (Rt. Rev. L. G., Bishop of Bombay). SERMONS 
Crown 8vo. 6s. 
NATURAL RELIGION. By the author of " Ecce Homo." 3rd 

Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. 

Universe." Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Pattison (Mark). SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
PAUL OF TARSUS. 8vo. los. 6d. 

PHILOCHRISTUS. Memoirs of a Disciple of the Lord. 3rdEd. 8vo. 123. 

THOUGHT. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 

Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
REASONABLE FAITH : A Short Religious Essay for the Times. By 

"Three Friends." Crown 8vo. is. 
Eeichel (Right Rev. C. P., Bishop of Meath) 

THE LORD'S PRAYER, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 



CHRISTIANS. Crown 8vo. 55. 

Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. 
Robinson (Prebendary H. G.) MAN IN THE IMAGE OF 

GOD, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

MAN : Sermons. With an introduction by Dean PLUMPTRE, 

D.D. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Salmon (Rev. Prof. George) 

NON-MIRACULOUS CHRISTIANITY, and other Sermons. 2nd 

Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
GNOSTICISM AND AGNOSTICISM, and other Sermons. Crown 

8vo. 73. 6d. 
SCOTCH SERMONS, 1880. By Principal CAIRD and others. 3rd 

Edition. 8vo. ibs. 6d. 

Service (Rev. John). SERMONS. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Shirley (W. N.) ELIJAH : Four University Sermons. Fcap. 

8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Smith (W. Saumarez). THE BLOOD OF THE NEW 

COVENANT : A Theological Essay. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Smith (Rev. Travers). MAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF MAN 

AND OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Stanley (Dean) 


Westminster Abbey. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
ADDRESSES AND SERMONS delivered at St. Andrews in 1872-75 

and 1877. Crown 8vo. 55. 
ADDRESSES AND SERMONS delivered during a visit to the 

United States and Canada in 1878. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Stewart (Prof. Balfour) and Tait (Prof. P. G.) THE UNSEEN 


FUTURE STATE. 15th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Stubbs (Rev. C. W.) FOR CHRIST AND CITY. Sermons 

and Addresses. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Tait (Archbishop) 


Being the Charge delivered at his Primary Visitation. 3rd Edition. 

8vo. 35. 6d. 

Addresses delivered at his Second Visitation. 8vo. 45. 6d. 
THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE. Charges delivered at his 

Third Quadrennial Visitation. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

8vo. 8s. 6d. 


Temple (Right Rev. Frederick, Bishop of London) 


SCHOOL. 3rd and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 

45. 6d. 

SECOND SERIES. 3rd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 
THIRD SERIES. 4th Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

Bampton Lectures, 1884. 7th and Cheaper Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
Trench (Archbishop). HULSEAN LECTURES. 8vo. 75. 6d. 
Tulloch (Principal). THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS 


fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. 
Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff) 


8vo. IDS. 6d. 

EPIPHANY, LENT, AND EASTER. 3 rd Ed. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. 
THE BOOK AND THE LIFE, and other Sermons. 3rd Edition. 

Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. 

HEROES OF FAITH. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
WORDS FROM THE GOSPELS. 3rd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 

45. 6d. 

Extra fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 

FOES OF FAITH. 2nd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. 

2nd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. 

THE TWO GREAT TEMPTATIONS. 2nd Ed. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. 

45. 6d. 

MY SON, GIVE ME THINE HEART." Extra fcap. 8vo. 55. 
REST AWHILE. Addresses to Toilers in the Ministry. Extra fcap. 

8vo. 55. 

TEMPLE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 
AUTHORISED OR REVISED ? Sermons on some of the Texts in 

which the Revised Version differs from the Authorised. Crown 

8vo. 73. 6d. 


PRAYER. Four Courses of Lent Lectures. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. 

Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. 

Crown 8vo. 95. 


TIAN HOPE. Hulsean Lectures for 1875. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
Vaughan (Rev. Robert). STONES FROM THE QUARRY. 

Sermons. Crown 8vo. 55. 

tures, 1869. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
Warington (G.) THE WEEK OF CREATION. Crown 8vo. 

45. 6d. 
Welldon (Rev. J. E. C.) THE SPIRITUAL LIFE, and 

other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Westcott (Rt. Rev. B. F., Bishop of Durham) 


2s. 6d. 

Sermons. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 
GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. 

Crown 8vo. is. 6d. 
THE VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Sermons preached during Holy 

Week, 1888, in Hereford Cathedral. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 

oriam J. B. D.) Crown 8vo. 2s. 

Crown 8vo. 6s. 

THE HISTORIC FAITH. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

THE WEST. Globe 8vo. 6s. 

SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Wilson (Ven. J. M., Archdeacon of Manchester) 


1879-83. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

Second Series. 1888-90. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. 

OF OUR TIME. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

CHURCH. 8vo. 45. 6d. 

By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 

Printed by R. & R. CLARK, Edinburgh 





This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 

on the date to which renewed. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate r< 


APR 7 1970 


General Library 

University of Californu