ON
A FRESH REVISION
OF THE
ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.
ON
A FRESH REVISION
OF THE
ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
BY THE LATE
JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM
REPRINTED
WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPENDIX ON THE
LAST PETITION OF THE LORD'S PRAYER
PUBLISHED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND
Uon&on
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK
1891
All Rights reserved
First Edition 1871
Second Edition 1872
Third Edition 1891
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY c. j. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
B-S 25/7
L 5-3
i *?/
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
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
466
VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
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,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vll
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-
clusion.
Great misunderstanding seems to prevail as to the
vili PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
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
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX
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
possible.
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.
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
April 3, 1871.
1 Appendix I. in the Third Edition [1891].
L. R.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XI
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
translation.
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
xii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Xlll
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
XIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV
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
b2
XVI PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV11
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
XVlil PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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),
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XIX
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 ?
XX PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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-
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXI
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.
XX11 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
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 ?
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XX111
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
dolore?
XXIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
<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.
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
S.John's Day, 1871.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
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.
XXVI PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
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
temporary.
May 25, 1891.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. S. JEROME'S REVISION OF THE LATIN BIBLE . i
II. AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE . 10
III. LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THESE HISTORICAL
PARALLELS . . 14
IV. NECESSITY FOR A FRESH REVISION OF THE
AUTHORISED VERSION . . . . .19
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
V. PROSPECTS OF THE NEW REVISION. . . 207
APPENDIX on the words riov<rios, Trepiovo-tos . . .217
APPENDIX on the last clause in the Lord's Prayer . 269
INDICES . . . . . . . . . .325
A FRESH REVISION
OF THE
ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.
I.
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
2 s. JEROME'S REVISION.
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).
ITS ASSAILANTS. 3
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.
12
4 s. JEROME'S REVISION.
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.).
ITS ASSAILANTS. 5
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
6 s. JEROME'S REVISION.
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.
HIS PERSEVERANCE. 7
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
8 S. JEROMES REVISION.
i
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.
ITS GRADUAL RECEPTION. 9
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).
IO S. JEROME'S REVISION.
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.
II.
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
work.
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).
THE AUTHORISED VERSION. II
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
12 THE AUTHORISED VERSION.
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.'
ITS RECEPTION. 13
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.
14 THE AUTHORISED VERSION.
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.
III.
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-
fluence.
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
HISTORICAL PARALLELS. 15
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
1 6 HISTORICAL PARALLELS.
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,
HISTORICAL PARALLELS. \J
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
1 8 HISTORICAL PARALLELS.
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
A REVISION NEEDED. 19
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.
IV.
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
2O A REVISION NEEDED.
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.
FALSE READINGS. 21
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.
i-
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
22 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FALSE READINGS. 23
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
24 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FALSE READINGS. 25
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
26 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
them.
FALSE READINGS. 27
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
28 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
FALSE READINGS. 29
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
30 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FALSE READINGS. 31
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.
32 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FALSE READINGS. 33
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
34 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FALSE READINGS. 35
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- &>//-. ..et? 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
32
36 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
2.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 37
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
38 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
they might be multiplied many times, will suffice to
show.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 39
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.
4O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 4!
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-
42 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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*
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 43
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
44 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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, ?
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 45
'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
46 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 47
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
48 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
hereafter.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 49
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
50 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 5!
which did not therefore force themselves on their
notice.
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-
ness.'
Again, /caXv-^rei, Tr\fj0o<; apapnwv (from Prov. x.
12) is translated in James v. 20 'shall hide a multi-
42
52 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
tude of sins,' and in I Pet. iv. 8 ' shall cover the mul-
titude of sins' (with a marginal reading 'will 1 for
'shall').
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.
DISTINCTIONS CREATED.
53
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,
OLV TOV KIHT/JLOV
eav /cepBtjarrj TOV
/cepBr/aas TOV KOG-
0\OVKpBrjO-r),TVV
KOO-fJLOV 0\0l>, KCU
fiov o\ov, eavTov
Be ^v^rjv avTOv
tofua>0y Tljv tyv-
Be aVoXeVas ^
&/jLicoefj;
%r)v avTOVj
ewut>0k;
' 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?'
soul ?'
self, or be cast
away?'
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-
terated.
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
54 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 55
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.
56 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 57
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.
58 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
\a.fj.pdve<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).
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 59
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.
6O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 6 1
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
f
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 ira.pa.K\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.
62 ERRORS AND DEFECTS
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
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 63
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.
64 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 65
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
66 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
'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.
3-
From the creation of artificial distinctions in our
English Version by different renderings of the same
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 67
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
52
68 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 69
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,
7O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
&<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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 71
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.'
72 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 73
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}
74 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 75
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
76 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
$i\elv and Kara<f>i\.lv in such passages as Matt. xxvi.
48, 49 ov av (f>i\ijo-(o auro9 a~Tiv...Kal /car(f>i\rj-
<rev avrcv, and Luke vii. 45, 46 </>t\?7/x poi OVK
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 77
, aurrj &e...ov SteXiTrev KaTa$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$ia and the
masculine ol ISiot, at once recalls the parable in Matt.
xxi. 33 sq., in which the vineyard corresponds to ra
TSta and the husbandmen to ol 181,01 ; but our Version
makes no distinction between the place and the
78 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
persons between 'His own home' and 'His own
people. 1 Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength
in the English rendering which no one would wil-
lingly sacrifice ; but the sense ought to be the first
consideration.
Let me pass to an illustration of another kind,
where confusion is introduced by the same render-
ing of different verbs: I Cor. xiv. 36 'What, came
the word of God out from you ? or came it unto you
only ? ' Here there appears to the English reader to
be an opposition between from and unto, and the two
interrogatives seem to introduce alternative proposi-
tions. The original however is rj afi vpwv 6 \6yos TOV
eov e%?)\6ev ; rj et? vfia? fjuovovs KarrjvTrjaev ; where
the fault of the English Version is twofold ; the same
word is used in rendering e%rj\6ev and KarrjvTvjo-ev,
and p,6vov<$ 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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 79
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'.
80 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
exhausted.
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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 8 1
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
reading.
L. R. 6
82 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
of the picture should be blurred in our English
Bibles.
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/
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 83
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
62
84 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 85
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).
86 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 87
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
88 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
'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
DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 89
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).
4-
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.
90 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
present.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 9!
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.
92 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 93
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
94 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 95
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
96 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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 a.ir<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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 97
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
98 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 99
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
72
ICO ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. IOI
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.
IO2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
specus.
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
criticism.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 03
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
IO4 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 105
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
state.
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
106 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 07
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.
IOS ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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).
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. IOQ
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
HO ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. I 1 1
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
I I 2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 113
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
114 ERRORS AND DEFECTS;
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,
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 115
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.
82
I 1 6 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 1/
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
Il8 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 119
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
thereby.
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
I2O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 121
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
122 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
obscured.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 123
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.
124 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
throughout.
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
source.
3 The common text however inserts the article in a few passages
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 125
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.
126 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR.
'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
numerous.
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.
128 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 29
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
I3O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 131
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.'
92
132 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 133
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
134 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
regretted.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 135
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.
136 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 137
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
138 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 139
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.'
I4O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-
spected.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 141
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.'
142 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 143
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,
raxtov.
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.
144 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 145
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 a.va.<paj>a.vTts.
L. R. 10
146 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 147
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-
cometh.'
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
148 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
, 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
THAT WAS AND THAT IS TO COME'? Certainly the
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
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 149
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-
I5O ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 151
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.
152 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 153
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.
154 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 155
%
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.
156 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY.
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.
158 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
* 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
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 159
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.
160 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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-:
FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. l6l
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
1 62 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
PROPER NAMES. 163
>
, 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
1 64 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
PROPER NAMES. 165
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.
1 66 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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,
PROPER NAMES. 167
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.
1 68 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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).
PROPER NAMES. 169
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.
I 70 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
PROPER NAMES.
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.
172 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
(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.
PROPER NAMES. 173
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
174 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.'
PROPER NAMES. 1/5
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)
176 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
PROPER NAMES. 177
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
Ij ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
many).
An error greater than any hitherto mentioned is
the rendering of the female name Euodia (Evo&uav
PROPER NAMES. 179
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
l8o ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.'
OFFICIAL TITLES. iSl
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.
1 82 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
(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.
OFFICIAL TITLES. 183
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.
184 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
COINS, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 185
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).
1 86 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
COINS, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 187
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
language.
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).
1 88 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.'
ARCHAISMS. 1 89
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
ERRORS AND DEFECTS
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
come.
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
ARCHAISMS. IQI
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.
I Q2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
ARCHAISMS. 193
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
194 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
grandchild.
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.
ARCHAISMS. 195
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
132
196 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
ARCHAISMS. 197
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
198 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
stand.
Not very dissimilar to the last instance is the
ambiguity of 'go about/ used in our Version as a
AMBIGUITIES. 199
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
2OO ERRORS 'AND DEFECTS.
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
FAULTS OF EXPRESSION. 2OI
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.
2O2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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
ERRORS OF THE PRESS. 2O3
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.'
2O4 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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.
ERRORS OF THE PRESS. 2O5
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.
2O6 ERRORS AND DEFECTS.
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. //.
CHANGES OF SPELLING. 2OJ
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
V.
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-
rectness.
208 PROSPECTS OF REVISION.
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
IMAGINARY DANGERS. 209
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
opinion.
L. R. 14
210 PROSPECTS OF REVISION.
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
IMAGINARY DANGERS. 2 I I
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.'
142
212 PROSPECTS OF REVISION.
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.
IMAGINARY DANGERS. 213
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
214 PROSPECTS OF REVISION.
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.
FAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 215
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
strongly.
APPENDIX I.
On the Words ITTLOVCTLOS,
I.
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
2l8 APPENDIX I.
* 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
APPENDIX I. 219
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).
22O APPENDIX I.
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)
APPENDIX I. 221
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
concerned.
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.
222 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX i.
223
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
connexion.
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*
224 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 225
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
ov<ria.
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
day'?
L. R. 15
226 APPENDIX I.
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
(1871).
APPENDIX I. 227
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 iJ.epifj.va.Te rrj
IS 2
228 APPENDIX I.
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.\.
APPENDIX I. 229
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
meaning.
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.
230 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 231
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
232 APPENDIX I.
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
derivation.
' 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.'
APPENDIX I. 233
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),
234 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 235
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
236 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 237
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).
238 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 239
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
untenable.
2 Prof. Wright informs me that he has not found any variation in
240 APPENDIX I.
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 :
ocn
'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.
APPENDIX I. 241
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
242 APPENDIX I.
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
words:
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.
vvA
' 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.
APPENDIX I. 243
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 :
neNooiK e6NHOY MHiq NAN MMHNI.
'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.
162
244 APPENDIX I.
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
possible.
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
APPENDIX I. 245
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
246 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 247
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.
248 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 249
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
250 APPENDIX I.
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-
APPENDIX I. 251
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.
252 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 253
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!
254 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 255
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.
256 APPENDIX I.
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).
APPENDIX I. 257
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
258 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 259
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
172
26O APPENDIX I.
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.
II.
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
APPENDIX I. 26l
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
262 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 263
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-
priate.'
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
264 APPENDIX I.
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
APPENDIX I. 265
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
266 APPENDIX I.
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.
APPENDIX I. 267
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.
268 APPENDIX I.
'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.
APPENDIX II.
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
270 APPENDIX II.
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
pamphlet.
APPENDIX II. 271
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
272 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 273
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.
i. THE DICTION.
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
remarks.
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
274 APPENDIX II.
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
O"7TapfJLVOV.
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
APPENDIX II. 275
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
(T6
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
necessary.
(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
276 APPENDIX II.
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
Trovrjpov.
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>
APPENDIX II. 277
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
278 APPENDIX II.
, 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
APPENDIX II. 279
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
280 APPENDIX II.
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
question.
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
APPENDIX II. 28l
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
282 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 283
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
284 APPENDIX II.
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
Septuagint.'
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?
APPENDIX II. 285
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
286 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 287
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
288 APPENDIX II.
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 ?
2. THE CONTEXT.
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
APPENDIX II. 289
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
2QO APPENDIX II.
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.
3. EARLY EXEGESIS.
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-
APPENDIX II. 291
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
192
2Q2 APPENDIX II.
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.
APPENDIX II. 293
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
294 APPENDIX II.
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.
APPENDIX II. 295
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
296 APPENDIX II.
.... 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.
APPENDIX II. 297
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
298 APPENDIX IT.
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
APPENDIX II. 299
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,
3OO APPENDIX II.
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-
APPENDIX II. 301
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
3O2 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 303
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
304 APPENDIX II.
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.
APPENDIX II. 305
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
300 APPENDIX II.
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
Satan.'
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
APPENDIX II. 307
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^-
KV "Eo-T(0 V/XCOV TO Vttt VOL KO.I TO OV OV, TO Of. TT^pLO-Q-OV TOUTO)!/ K
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
308 APPENDIX II.
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
K.T.X.
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-
latur.'
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA Fragin. p. 1601 (ed.
Migne),
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
APPENDIX II. 309
GREGORY NYSSEN de Omt. Dom. 5 (i. p. 760),
apa o TreipaoTxos re /cat d Trov^pos fv TL /cara r-qv a"rjp.ao-iav
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.
DIDYMUSOF ALEXANDRIA r. Manich. u (p. HOO,
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'
310 APPENDIX II.
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
sense.
APPENDIX II. 311
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
312 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 313
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
3H APPENDIX II.
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
explanations.
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
APPENDIX II. 315
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,
etc.'
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
sight.
The patristic testimony therefore in favour of the
masculine rendering is overwhelming. To Canon
Cook however it assumes a wholly different aspect :
APPENDIX II.
' 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
rendering.
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
APPENDIX II. 317
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
318 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 319
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.
4. THEOLOGICAL PROPRIETY.
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
32O APPENDIX II.
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
question.
Happily Canon Cook has saved me all trouble,
APPENDIX II. 321
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
322 APPENDIX II.
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
APPENDIX II. 323
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
Cook.
212
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
.TT.i. I
III
MATT. vi. 34
190,226,227
2,3
I 7 8
viii. 12 ....
117
6
"3
23
"5
22
100, 101, 135
ix. i
I2 5
ii. 4
112
16
159
5
135
x. 4
153, 155
6
I 7 8
9
9 8
15
96, 135
16
152
17
135' '75
29
I8 4
iii. i
106
xi. 2
112
3
135
xii. i, 5, 10, ii,
12 l62
4
129
18
157
13
106
xiii. 2
125
14
107
19
274,282,287,
15,16 ...
146
288, 291,
iv. 1,3
290
292, 295,
5
121
298, 322
6
139
20
53. 196
8
124
21
196
13
194
24,25
75
V. I
123
33
1 88
15
47, 122, 131,
38,39 -
274.275.282,
187
291, 292,
16
47
296, 298
32
78
42,50 ...
117
37
275' 278,
55
178
295, 298
xiv. 8
151
39
2/5, 278,
13
125
295, 298
22
125
vi. ii
217268
xv. 3, 6
138
13
33, 269323
21
194
16, 18 ...
145
22
154
25
190, 227
27
149
31
190
35
81
326
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
MATT. xvi. 9, 10...
80
MATT. xxv. 30 ...
117
14
175
32
38
16
112
4 6
45
17
177
xxvi. 15
156
25
65
25
1 80
16
53^5
3 6
1 60
xvii. r
I2 4
48
76
10
I6 9
49
76,
180
21
33
50
143
14 sq.
1 86
56
IOO, IOI
25
198
63
112
xviii. 6, 7
197
64
139
24 j?.
187
69,71 ...
126
33
38
xxvii. 9
33
xix. 8
IOO
15
128
9
79
27
54
17
34
33
179
r 9
177
35
J35
xx. 2, 9, 10, 13
184, 185
xxviii. 19
28,
140
20
38
MARKi. I
33,
in
xxi. 4
100,101,135
21
162
12
88, 122
ii. 15, 16
126
33-^-
77
21
'59
xxii. i sq.
79
23
162
9, 10 ...
76
iii. 2, 4
162
13
117
5
i5 2
xxiii. 6
48
18
153
7,8 ...
1 80
iv. \
125
24
204, 205
16
53
35
88
21
122, 187
xxiv. 5
112
2 9
156
12
109
v. 13
122
15
X 35
vi. 3
I 7 8
21
IOO
27
183
27
144
30
125
30
139
37
185
5 I
117
45
ii
xxv. 6
101
52
152
14^. ...
187
vii. 9
138
INDEX I.
327
PAGE
PAGE
MARKvii. 26
174
LuKEiii. 23
141
31
194
24
I 7 6
viii. 19, 20
80
26
178
29
112
27
176, 177
36
53
30
176, 177, 17*
ix. 2
124
33
I 7 8
5
1 80
iv. 5
124
29
33
9
121
41
in, 113
ii
139
x. 18
34
20
193
51
180
vi. 15
154
xi. 4
122
16
128
15
122
17
123
21
180
36
8 4
xii. 26
139
45
274,292,295
39
48
298, 300
42
I8 4
vii. 4
196
xiii. 14
135
5
122
28
149
33.34 .-
106
xiv. 5
185
41
185
32
160
45, 46 ...
76
45
180
viii. 14
54
53.54 .-
146
29
301
66,69 .
126
ix. 25
53
xv. 6
128
55
32
16
55
x. 35
185
22
179
xi. 3
217 260
xvi. 9 20 ...
31
4
269323
LUKE i. i
158
33
122, 187
39
125,178, 186
51
88
59
106
xii. 6
184
63
192
35
131
65
125, 186
xiii. 6
150
ii. n
in
21
1 88
18
132
23
105
24
122
28
117
33
32
xv. 8
1 86, 187
36
171
9
1 86
43
32
xvi. 6, 7
1 88
,28
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
LUKExvii. i, 2 ...
I 9 6
JOHN iv. 5
160
xviii. 12
97
6
Si
19
34
27
127
31
135
31
1 80
xix. 13
46, 187, 197
37
129
15
46
V. I
129
xx. 37
139
3.4
34
xxi. 19
97
35
130
xxii. i
1 80
44
129
43.44
32
vi. 4
129
xxiii. 2
in
7
185
5
179
14
JI 5
17
128
22 Sq. ...-;'
125
33
179
25
1 80
34
32
5 I
249
35.39 -
112
6 9
112
xxiv. 10
109
vii. i
I 79
JOHN i. 3
91, 136, 137
19,20
199
7
W J 37
25
199
8
131
26
112
9
131
4 o
"3
10
I3 6 137
viii. i ii ...
3 1
ii
77
44
278
14
63
58
84
16
114
ix. 2
1 80
17
in, 137
5
I 3 I
18
22, 30
22
in
21
"5
x. 16
79
25
112, 115
xi. 8
1 80
2 9
157
14
202
39
1 80
xii. 5
185
43
176, 177
6
158
50
180
13
120
ii. 6
187
4 o
152
iii. 2
1 80
xiii. 12
81
8
64
23,25 ...
80, 8 1
10
120
27
H3
19
131
xiv. 5, 6
"5
26
1 80
i6sq.
56, 59.
INDEX I.
329
PAGE
PAGE
JOHNxiv. 18
59
ACTS viii. 16
140
26
56, 59
30
6 5
xv. 3
138
37
33
26
56, 59. 6l
ix. 2
"5
xvi. 1,4,6 ...
38
35
120, I 7 2
7
56,59
X. 2
8 9
30
43
30
33
xvii. 3
in
38
292
15
275. 279,
xi. 17
96, 129
295, 298
19
1 80
xviii. i ...
160
xii. 4
180
28,33 -
54
9
133
39
129
12
174
xix. 9
54
22
89
17
179
25
174
36
IOI
xiii. 14
162
xx. 16
1 80
21
171
22
64
50
161
25
38
xiv. 13
160
xxi. 15, 16, 17
176, 177
xv. 3
1 80
20
81
xvi. ii
222
ACTS i. 3
1 60
3538 .-
183
13
!54
xvii. i
122
18
98
2
163
ii. 3
156
5
8 9
ii
'75
19,22
179
23
133
23
88, 197
273i ..-
88
29
160
38
in
xviii. 12
181
43
133
14
'95
47
105
xix. I
194
iii. 6
in
2
96
8
301
3.5
140
I3 2 6 ...
157
9
"5
iv. 25,27 ...
89
15
67
27,30 ...
157
23
"5
vii. 26
107
30
89
45
175
31
182
viii. 5
128
33
89
330
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
Aersxix.35
182.
ROM. iv. 19
35
38
181
22
5i
XX. 2
174
v. 9
117
15
222
15
96
xxi. 2
1 80
1519 ...
108
3
145
vi. I sq.
93
15
193
1
93. 96
18
222
3
93, HO
28
8 9
4,6 ...
93
3i
199
8
93, 96
3L32 ...
I8 3
, 13 -.
158
xxii. 24 26 ...
I8 3
17,18
93
xxiii. 17 23 ...
183
21
202
35
55
22
94
xxiv. 5, 6
199
23
158
22
"5
vii. i sq.
no
XXV. 22
107
4
94
26
7i
6
94
xxvi. 24, 25
38
ii
30i
xxvii. 12
180
viii. 6
96
20
144
ii
138
xxviii. 13
193
16
60
15
179, 207
24
105
16
183
26
60
16,29
32
ix. 3
107
ROM. 1.29
195
25
89
ii. i
69
26
89, 174
8
152
x. 9, 13 ...
105
12 .S^.
no
15
38
18
118
xi. 2
139
22
1 60
7
151* 152
2 4
138
8
155
26
151
20
195
iii. 4,6
202
25
151, 152
19 *?. ...
1 10
xii. 2
86
25
I5<>
3
65
24 26 ...
56
9
292, 298
iv. 3,9
51
ii
3
i$sq.
no
19
51, 117, 118
INDEX I. 331
PAGE
PAGE
RoM.xiii. n
9 6
i COR. xii.2
66
xiv. 14
141
+ sq.
38,49
22,23
69, 74, 75
13
140, 141, 175
xv. 4, 5
38
22
6
32
118
28
143
xvi. i
127
xiii. 8
40
3.5.6,7,8,9
39 49
9, 12
68
7
179
xiv. 7
82
9
174
16
193
10 16 ...
39. 49
20
82
19
152
23
203
23
182
24,29 ...
7i
i COR. i. 10
161
36
78
13
140
XV. 2
96, 105
18
105
4 20 ...
98, 99
28
231
22
96
ii. 1315 ...
69
24 28 ...
40, 41
14. 15 -
70
4
83,84
iii. 5
96
51
34
17
38
xvi. 1,2
4i
iv. 3' 4. 5 -
69
12
118
8
202
15
201
v. 9
119
22
H4
13
295, 2 9 8
2COR.i. I
175
vi. i 6
69
3-8 ...
41
vii. 5
33
9
75
31
65
13
66
32
192
19
i75
viii. 6
136, 140
20
35
IO, 12
129
23
149
ix. 3
70
ii. 6
no
4
109
14
150
22
92
15
105
X. 2
140
iii. i
41
l6sq.
38
2
65
25,27 ...
70
5,6 ...
42
32
175
7
42
xi. 2834
72, 73
ii
77
29.31,32-..
69
l^sq. ...
42
332
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
2 COR. iii. 14
42, 151
2 COR. xiii. 9, ii...
161
18
42
14
28
iv. 2
195
GAL. i. 6
83
3
42
ii. 7
96
4
'156
16
96
8
66
16 21 ...
94
13
97
iii. 3
94
15
138
6
5i
v. 6 ii ...
42
ios$.
no
14
95
19
'34
16
67
27
94, 140
vi. 9
69
iv. 20
107
10
66
v. 13
94
vii. 7
42
20
152
10
85
2 4
94
ii
119
EPH. i. i
23/231
I3i4 .
92
11,13
94
viii. 10 12 ...
43
23
46, 114
19
130
ii. 5, 8
105
ix. 2 5
43
5, 6, 13, 14
94
13
2OI
iii. 10
134
x. 5
159
19
114
12
66,69
iv. 1,4, 7 ...
94
13.15,16
43
13
114
xi. 3
*39
18
IS*. 152
4
84
29
143
9
i59
30
94
16 18 ...
43
v. 15
66
xii. i
36
vi. 12
199
isq. ...
99
16
274,291,294,
2,3
43
296, 298
7
9i
PHIL. i. 13
55
9
63
14
109
13
109
17
152
13,14 ...
'59
ii. 3
152
15
76
6sq.
87
17
9i
9
119
18
91, 119
13
43
20
152, 195
15
144, 152
INDEX I.
333
PAGE
PAGE
PHIL. ii. 30
35
i TIM. iii. 3
161
iii. 2, 3
65
ii
127
$sq.
43
13
198
14
199
16
30, i99
iv. 2
179
v. 4
194
2,3
142
19
3
6
192, 227
vi. 2
130
19
235* 2 3 6
5
130
COL. i. 13
94
17
195
16
92, 136
2 TIM. i. 7,9
94
19
114
ii. 19
130
ii. 5
158
iii. 4
195
8
151
iv. ii
174
9
114
TIT. i. 7
162
9, 10
46
12
175
II sq.
93
ii. 14
261, 263,
16
162
267, 268
20
96
iii. 5
94
iii. 1,3
94
PHILEM. 2
207
3
96
24
175
8
199
HEB. i. i
48
13
J 95
2
136
15
94
ii. 10
136
iv. 10
i49 175
16
156
14
!75
iii. ii
52
iTHESS.ii.4
44
iv. 3
52
16
118
8
i75
iv. 4
97
V. 2
200
6
"9
12
2OO
V. 22
277
vi. i
143
2THESS.i. 6
44
7
138
ii. i, 2
141
8, 16 ...
130
3^- .
116
vii. 14
99, 178
6
45
21 24 ...
99
7
45. 198
viii. 8
178
iii. 2, 3
275, 288,
13
44
295, 298
ix. i
130
ii
66
69, 18...
103, 104
i TIM. i. 4
205
28
157
iii. i
3
X. I
104, 130
334
INDEX I.
PAGE
PAGE
HEB. x. 30
51
I JOHNiv. 9, IO, 14
9 2
xi. 10
116
v. 6
126
31
172
7
2730
xii. 26
149
9, 10
44
JAMES i. 15
86
18,19 ...
274, 276,
17
85
291, 296,
ii. 2,3
44
298, 321
23
51
JUDE 12
149' I5* *53
25
172
REV. i. 4
147
iii. 5
156
15
44
14, 16
152
ii. 13
46
v. 9
195
26
H7
16 ...
203
iii. 12
147
20
51
17
44, 170
i PET. i. 3
94
21
M7
16
84
iv. 4
46
18
94
5
13'
ii. 4
141
ii
200
9
263, 268
v. 5
178
10
89
vi. 6
185, iSjSf.
16
195
vii. 5
178
21
94
6
171
2 4
157
12,14 ...
117
iii. 9
94
15
&5
21
151
viii. 10
J 3 r
iv. 8
52
12
145
v. 7
191, 227
xi. 9, ii
127
8
322
16
46
13
175
xiii. 6 - ...
63
2 PET. ii. 1,3
44
xiv. 15, 16
139
13
153
xvi. 10
46
iii. 12
142
xvii. i
117
i JOHN i. 8
322
6,7 ...
45
ii. i
56
xviii. 2
45
13,14 ...
274, 291,
23
145
296, 298
xix. 9
130
iii. 8
278
xxi. 3
63
12
274, 278,
14, 19*7....
116
291, 298
24
105
INDEX II.
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,
65
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,
172
Athanasius (S.) on eTrtoi/o-tos, 232
Augustine (S.) on Jerome's revision,
INDEX II.
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,
280
Basil (S.) on tiriofoios, 227, 233
sq.
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.
INDEX II.
337
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,
308
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
236
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,
308
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
151
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,
102
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
sq.
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
22
INDEX II.
156
222, 226
lTTi.ovffi.os, 217 sq.
225, 228
152
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
sq.
Greek scholarship in England, 208
sq.
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,
104
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
sq.
imperfect tense mistranslated, 106
sq.
Isidore of Pelusium on dirb TOV
Trovripov, 309
Isidore of Seville, 13
Ismenias, 9
Italic, Old, the title, 293 ; see Latin,
Old
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;
INDEX II.
339
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
34
INDEX II.
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,
210
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.
151
(6), 113 sq.
Trrepvyiov (TO), 12 1
trvXwves, 161
irwpovv, Tr&pucris, 151
<f)atveiv t <f>aLvecr6ai t 144 sq.
<paivo[j.ai uv, (patvofJiai elvai, 145
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
INDEX II.
341
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
sq.
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,
240
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
sq.
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
150
Urbane, 174
(fXi;, 156
viro, 5id, 133
various readings, 30 sq.
342
INDEX II.
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
CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text,
with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. loth Edition. 8vo.
IIS.
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
BISHOP LIGHTFOOTS SERMONS.
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.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
WORKS BY BISHOP WESTCOTT.
Just Ready. Globe 8vo. 6s.
ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN
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.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with
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
scholars."
Crown 8vo. Cloth.
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. Sixth
Edition. IQJ. 6d.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
Seventh Edition. los. f>d.
THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. Sixth Edition. 6.r.
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. Tenth Edition. i8mo. 4*. 6d.
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, MANIFOLD AND ONE. is. 6d.
ON THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITIES. Ser-
mons. 4*. &/.
THE HISTORIC FAITH. Third Edition. 6s.
THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. Fourth Edition. 6s.
THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. 6s.
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. Second Edition. 6*.
SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL, is. 6d.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 6s.
GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination.
THE' VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Sermons preached during Holy
Week, 1888, in Hereford Cathedral. 3*. 6d.
FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. Three Sermons (in Me-
moriam J. B. DA zs.
ESSAYS. Globe 8vo.
WESTCOTT AND HORT'S GREEK TESTAMENT.
Crown 8vo.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. Revised
Text. 2 vols. ioj. &/. each. Vol. I. Text. Vol. II. The Introduction and
Appendix.
i8mo.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. An
Edition for Schools. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr HORT.
41. 6d. ; roan, $s. bd. ; morocco, 6s. 6d.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
April 1891
A Catalogue ,^ mflm
of
Theological Works
published by
Macmillan
Bedford Street, Strand, London
CONTENTS
PAGE
THE BIBLE
History of the Bible ..... i
Biblical History . I
The Old Testament ...... I
The New Testament 3
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 5
DEVOTIONAL BOOKS 7
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ... 8
HYMNOLOGY . 9
SERMONS, LECTURES, ADDRESSES, AND THEOLOGICAL
ESSAYS 9
April 1891.
MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE
tTbe Bible
HISTORY OF THE BIBLE
THE ENGLISH BIBLE : An External and Critical History of the
various English Translations of Scripture. By Prof. JOHN EADIE.
2 vols. 8vo. 283.
THE BIBLE IN THE .CHURCH. By Right Rev. Bishop WEST-
COTT. loth Edition. i8mo. 45. 6d.
BIBLICAL HISTORY
BIBLE LESSONS. By Rev. E. A. ABBOTT. Crown 8vo. 43. 6d.
STORIES FROM THE BIBLE. By Rev. A. J. CHURCH. Illus-
trated. Crown 8vo. 53.
BIBLE READINGS SELECTED FROM THE PENTATEUCH
AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. By Rev. J. A. CROSS.
2nd Edition. Globe 8vo. 23. 6d.
CHILDREN'S TREASURY OF BIBLE STORIES. By Mrs.
H. GASKOIN. i8mo. is. each. Part I. Old Testament ; II. New
Testament ; III. Three Apostles.
A CLASS-BOOK OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Rev.
Canon MACLEAR. With Four Maps. i8mo. 43. 6d.
A CLASS-BOOK OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. Includ-
ing the connection of the Old and New Testament. By the same.
i8mo. 55. 6d.
A SHILLING BOOK OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By
the same. i8mo. is.
A SHILLING BOOK OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. By
the same. i8mo. is.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
SCRIPTURE READINGS FOR SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES.
By C. M. YONGE. Globe 8vo. is. 6d. each ; also with comments,
35. 6d. each. First Series : GENESIS TO DEUTERONOMY. Second
Series: JOSHUA TO SOLOMON. Third Series: KINGS AND THE
PROPHETS. Fourth Series : THE GOSPEL TIMES. Fifth Series :
APOSTOLIC TIMES.
2 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
The Old Testament continued.
THE PATRIARCHS AND LAWGIVERS OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT. By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE. 7th
Edition. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
THE PROPHETS AND KINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By the same. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Pentateuch
AN HISTORICO-CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN
AND COMPOSITION OF THE HEXATEUCH (PENTA-
TEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA). By Prof. A. KUENEN,
Translated by PHILIP H. WICKSTEED, M.A. 8vo. 145.
The Psalms
THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE PSALMS. By Rev. GRANVILLE
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.
THE PSALMS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED. An
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.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND USE OF THE
PSALMS. By Rev. J. F. THRUPP 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 2is.
Isaiah
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.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, Critical, Historical,
and Prophetical ; including a Revised English Translation. By
T. R. BIRKS. 2nd Edition. 8vo. I2s. 6d.
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED.
By T. K. CHEYNE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Zechariah
THE HEBREW STUDENT'S COMMENTARY ON ZECH-
ARIAH, Hebrew and LXX. By W. H. LOWE, M.A. 8vo. los. 6d.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 3
THE NEW TESTAMENT
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,
THE CLASSICAL ELEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
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.
ON THE REVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. To which
are appended Letters to the Guardian on the Lord's Prayer. By
Bishop LIGHTFOOT. Crown 8vo. [In the Press.
THE UNITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By F. D. MAURICE.
2nd Edition. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. I2s.
A COMPANION TO THE GREEK TESTAMENT AND THE
ENGLISH VERSION. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 125.
A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR
CENTURIES. By Right Rev. BISHOP WESTCOTT. 6th Edition.
Crown 8vo. los. 6d.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. The
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.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, for
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.
THE GOSPELS
THE COMMON TRADITION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS,
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.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 7th Ed. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d.
THE COMPOSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. By Rev.
ARTHUR WRIGHT. Crown 8vo. 55.
St. Matthew
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. Greek Text
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. )
4 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
St. Mark
SCHOOL READINGS IN THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
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
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. The Greek Text
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.
THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. A Course
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
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.
THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST DAYS. THE CHURCH OF
JERUSALEM. THE CHURCH OF THE GENTILES. THE CHURCH
OF THE WORLD. Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By
Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d.
THE EPISTLES
Of St. Paul
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS, THE
COLOSSIANS, AND PHILEMON. With Introductions and
Notes. By Rev. J. LL. DAVIES. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 75. 6d.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS,
COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT. By Prof. JOHN
EADIE. 8vo. I2s.
A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S TWO EPISTLES TO
THE CORINTHIANS. Greek Text, with Commentary. By
Rev. W. KAY. 8vo. 93.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A Revised
Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By Bishop
LIGHTFOOT. loth Edition. 8vo. 125.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A Revised
Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By the same.
9th Edition. 8vo. I2S.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO
PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, etc. By the
same. 9th Edition. 8vo. I2s.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 5
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.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. With transla-
tion, Paraphrase, and Notes for English Readers. By the same.
Crown 8vo. 55.
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. The Greek Text,
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
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. By F. D. MAURICE. 4th
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
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS IN GREEK AND
ENGLISH. With Notes. By Rev. FREDERIC RENDALL.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. English Text, with Com-
mentary. By the same. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. With Notes. By Very
Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with
Notes and Essays. By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 8vo. 145.
REVELATION
LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE. By F. D. MAURICE.
2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By Rev. Prof. W. MILLI-
GAN. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
LECTURES ON THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By Very
Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. ics. 6d.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S GUIDE. By Rev. Canon WILSON.
2nd Edition. 4to. 255.
THE BIBLE WORD-BOOK. By W. ALDIS WRIGHT. 2nd Editioa
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
be Cburcb of Englanb
Catechism of
A CLASS-BOOK OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. i8mo. is. 6d.
A FIRST CLASS-BOOK OF THE CATECHISM OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND, with Scripture Proofs for Junior
Classes and Schools. By the same. i8mo. 6d.
6 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
Catechism of continued.
THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, with Prayers and Devo-
tions. By the Rev. Canon MACLEAR. 32mo. 6d.
Collects
COLLECTS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. With a
Coloured Floral Design to each Collect. Crown 8vo. 125.
Disestablishment
DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT. What are
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.
A DEFENCE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGAINST
DISESTABLISHMENT. By ROUNDELL, Earl of Selborne.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
ANCIENT FACTS & FICTIONS CONCERNING CHURCHES
AND TITHES. By the same. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
Dissent in its Relation to
DISSENT IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH OF ENG-
LAND. By Rev. G. H. CURTEIS. Bampton Lectures for 1871.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Holy Communion
THE COMMUNION SERVICE FROM THE BOOK OF
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.
A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION FOR CONFIRMATION AND
FIRST COMMUNION, with Prayers and Devotions. By the
same. 32mo. 2s.
Liturgy
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS. By Rev. Canon
MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES.
By the same. i8mo. \In the Press.
A HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. By
Rev. F. PROCTER. i8th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d.
AN ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF
COMMON PRAYER. By Rev. F. PROCTER and Rev. Canon
MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d.
TWELVE DISCOURSES ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH
THE LITURGY AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 4th Edition.
Fcap. Svo. 6s.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 7
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF READ AND OTHERS v. THE
LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN. Nov. 21, 1890. By His
Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 8vo. is. 6d. net.
Devotional Boo fee
Eastlake (Lady). FELLOWSHIP: LETTERS ADDRESSED
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
FOR CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION, WITH
PRAYERS AND DEVOTIONS. 32mo. 2s.
FIRST COMMUNION, WITH PRAYERS AND DEVOTIONS
FOR THE NEWLY CONFIRMED. 32010. 6s.
THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, WITH PRAYERS AND
DEVOTIONS. 32mo. 6d.
THE HOUR OF SORROW; OR, THE OFFICE FOR THE
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.
RAYS OF SUNLIGHT FOR DARK DAYS. With a Preface by
Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. New Edition. i8mo. 35. 6d.
Service (Rev. John). PRAYERS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.
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
LEAF: THOUGHTS AND RECOLLECTIONS FOR OLD
AND YOUNG. Globe 8vo. 33. 6d.
WORSHIP (THE) OF GOD, AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG MEN.
By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
8 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
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
IN ITS ORGANISATION AND INSTITUTIONS. 8vo. gs.
Dale (A. W. W.) THE SYNOD OF ELVIRA, AND CHRIS-
TIAN LIFE IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. Cr. 8vo. ics. 6d.
Hardwick (Archdeacon). A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH. Middle Age. Ed. by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. IDS. 6d.
A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DURING THE
REFORMATION. Revised by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d.
Killen (W. D.) ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF IRE-
LAND, FROM THE EARLIEST DATE TO THE PRESENT
TIME. 2 vols. 8vo. 255.
Simpson (W.) AN EPITOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff). THE CHURCH
OF THE FIRST DAYS. THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM. THE
CHURCH OF THE GENTILES. THE CHURCH OF THE WORLD.
Crown 8vo. ios. 6d.
Ward (W.) WILLIAM GEORGE WARD AND THE
OXFORD MOVEMENT. Portrait. 8vo. 145.
3fatber0
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
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part I. ST. CLEMENT OF ROME.
Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and
Translations. By Bishop LIGHTFOOT. 2 vols. 8vo. 325.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part II. ST. IGNATIUS to ST. POLY-
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.
TWO DISSERTATIONS. I. On MONOFENHS 6EOS in Scrip-
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.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE
Balliol College. PSALMS AND HYMNS FOR BALLIOL
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.
Woods (Miss M. A.) HYMNS FOR SCHOOL WORSHIP.
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.)
CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. 8vo. 6s.
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.
Bather (Archdeacon). ON SOME MINISTERIAL DUTIES,
CATECHISING, PREACHING, ETC. Edited, with a Preface,
by Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d.
io MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
Bethune-Baker (J. F.)
THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON WAR. 8vo. 55.
THE STERNNESS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING, AND ITS
RELATION TO THE LAW OF FORGIVENESS. Crown
8vo. 2s. 6d.
Binnie (Rev. William). SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Birks (Thomas Rawson)
THE DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH
THE CREATION AND THE FALL, REDEMPTION, AND
JUDGMENT. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 53.
JUSTIFICATION AND IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. Being
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.
6s.
SERMONS PREACHED IN ENGLISH CHURCHES. Crown
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)
SERMONS, DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL. nth Edition.
8vo. 8s.
SECOND SERIES OF SERMONS. 8vo. 75.
Butler (Rev. George). SERMONS PREACHED IN CHEL-
TENHAM COLLEGE CHAPEL. 8vo. 75. 6d.
Calderwood (Rev. Prof.)
THE RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Crown
8vo. 55.
THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Campbell (Dr. John M'Leod)
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 6th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
REMINISCENCES AND REFLECTIONS. Edited with an
Introductory Narrative, by his Son, DONALD CAMPBELL, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THOUGHTS ON REVELATION. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE.
Compiled from Sermons preached at Row, in the years 1829-31.
Crown 8vo. 55.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE u
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.
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE DIOCESE OF CANTER-
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.
THE PERMANENT ELEMENTS OF RELIGION: Bampton
Lectures, 1887. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Cazenove (J. Gibson). CONCERNING THE BEING AND
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 8vo. 55.
Church (Dean)
THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Twelve Years, 1833-45. 8vo.
I2s. 6d. net.
HUMAN LIFE AND ITS CONDITIONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE GIFTS OF CIVILISATION, and other Sermons and Lectures.
2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, and other
Sermons. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
ADVENT SERMONS. 1885. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
CLERGYMAN'S SELF-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE
APOSTLES' CREED. Extra fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.
Congreve (Rev. John). HIGH HOPES AND PLEADINGS
FOR A REASONABLE FAITH, NOBLER THOUGHTS,
LARGER CHARITY. Crown 8vo. 55.
Cooke (Josiah P., Jun.) RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Cotton (Bishop). SERMONS PREACHED TO ENGLISH
CONGREGATIONS IN INDIA. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
Curteis (Rev. G. H.) THE SCIENTIFIC OBSTACLES TO
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.
SOCIAL QUESTIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
WARNINGS AGAINST SUPERSTITION. Extra fcap. 8vo.
2S. 6d.
12
MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
Davies (Rev. J. Llewelyn) continued.
THE CHRISTIAN CALLING. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s.
ORDER AND GROWTH AS INVOLVED IN THE SPIRITUAL
CONSTITUTION OF HUMAN SOCIETY. Crown 8vo.
35. 6d.
Diggle (Rev. J. W.) GODLINESS AND MANLINESS.
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
ITS LESSONS FOR BUSY LIVES. Crown 8vo. 6s.
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.
THE WITNESS OF HISTORY TO CHRIST. Being the Hulsean
Lectures for 1870. 7th Edition. Crown Svo. 55.
SAINTLY WORKERS. Five Lenten Lectures. 3rd Edition.
Crown Svo. 6s.
THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION. Being the Bampton
Lectures, 1885. Svo. i6s.
Fiske (John). MAN'S DESTINY VIEWED IN THE LIGHT
OF HIS ORIGIN. Crown Svo. 35. 6d.
Forbes (Rev. Granville). THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE
PSALMS. Crown Svo. 6s. 6d.
Fowle (Rev. T. W.) A NEW ANALOGY BETWEEN
REVEALED RELIGION AND THE COURSE AND CON-
STITUTION OF NATURE. Crown Svo. 6s.
Fraser (Bishop). SERMONS. Edited by Rev. JOHN W.
DIGGLE. 2 vols. Crown Svo. 6s. each.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 13
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)
THE MISSION OF THE COMFORTER. New Edition. Edited
by Dean PLUMPTRE. Crown 8vo. 73. 6d.
THE VICTORY OF FAITH. Edited by Dean PLUMPTRE, with
Introductory Notices by Prof. MAURICE and Dean STANLEY.
Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
GUESSES AT TRUTH. By Two Brothers, AUGUSTUS WILLIAM
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
GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST. 8vo. IDS. 6d.
Button (R. H.)
ESSAYS ON SOME OF THE MODERN GUIDES OF ENG-
LISH THOUGHT IN MATTERS OF FAITH. GlobeSvo. 6s.
THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 6s.
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.
Kellogg (Rev. S. H.) THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND THE
LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. ;s. 6d.
i 4 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
Kingsley (Charles)
VILLAGE AND TOWN AND COUNTRY SERMONS. Crown
8vo. 35. 6d.
THE WATER OF LIFE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
SERMONS ON NATIONAL SUBJECTS, AND THE KING OF
THE EARTH. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
SERMONS FOR THE TIMES. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
GOOD NEWS OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
THE GOSPEL OF THE PENTATEUCH, AND DAVID. Crown
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
THE COLLEGE CHAPEL, CHELTENHAM. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Lightfoot (Bishop)
LEADERS IN THE NORTHERN CHURCH : Sermons Preached
in the Diocese of Durham. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ORDINATION ADDRESSES AND COUNSELS TO CLERGY.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SERMONS PREACHED IN ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL. Crown
8vo. 6s.
SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. Crown
8vo. [In the Press.
A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE
DIOCESE OF DURHAM, 25th Nov. 1886. Demy 8vo. 2s.
ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "Supernatural Reli-
gion." 8vo. los. 6d.
Maclaren (Rev. Alexander)
SERMONS PREACHED AT MANCHESTER. nth Edition.
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.
THE SECRET OF POWER, AND OTHER SERMONS. Fcap.
8vo. 45. 6d.
Macmillan (Rev. Hugh)
BIBLE TEACHINGS IN NATURE. I5th Ed. Globe 8vo. 6s.
THE TRUE VINE ; OR, THE ANALOGIES OF OUR LORD'S
ALLEGORY. 5th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s.
THE MINISTRY OF NATURE. 8th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s.
THE SABBATH OF THE FIELDS. 6th Edition. Globe 8vo.
6s.
THE MARRIAGE IN CANA. Globe 8vo. 6s.
TWO WORLDS ARE OURS. 3rd Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s-
THE OLIVE LEAF. Globe 8vo. 6s.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 15
Mahaffy (Rev. Prof.) THE DECAY OF MODERN PREACH-
ING : AN ESSAY. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Maturin (Rev. W.) THE BLESSEDNESS OF THE DEAD
IN CHRIST. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
Maurice (Frederick Denison)
EXPOSITORY SERMONS ON THE PRAYER-BOOK ; AND ON
THE LORD'S PRAYER. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SERMONS PREACHED IN COUNTRY CHURCHES. 2nd
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE CONSCIENCE. Lectures on Casuistry. 3rd Ed. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d.
DIALOGUES ON FAMILY WORSHIP. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
THE DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE DEDUCED FROM THE
SCRIPTURES. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. 6th Edition. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d.
ON THE SABBATH DAY; THE CHARACTER OF THE
WARRIOR; AND ON THE INTERPRETATION OF
HISTORY. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
LEARNING AND WORKING. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
THE LORD'S PRAYER, THE CREED, AND THE COM-
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
PREACHED IN ST. THOMAS'S CATHEDRAL, BOMBAY.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
NATURAL RELIGION. By the author of " Ecce Homo." 3rd
Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s.
PARADOXICAL PHILOSOPHY: A Sequel to "The Unseen
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.
Plumptre (Dean). MOVEMENTS IN RELIGIOUS
THOUGHT. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
Potter (R.) THE RELATION OF ETHICS TO RELIGION.
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.
CATHEDRAL AND UNIVERSITY SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
16 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S
RendaU (Rev. F.) THE THEOLOGY OF THE HEBREW
CHRISTIANS. Crown 8vo. 55.
Reynolds (H. R.) NOTES OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
Robinson (Prebendary H. G.) MAN IN THE IMAGE OF
GOD, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Russell (Dean). THE LIGHT THAT LIGHTETH EVERY
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)
THE NATIONAL THANKSGIVING. Sermons preached in
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.
THE ATHANASIAN CREED. Crown 8vo. 2s.
Stewart (Prof. Balfour) and Tait (Prof. P. G.) THE UNSEEN
UNIVERSE; OR, PHYSICAL SPECULATIONS ON A
FUTURE STATE. 15th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Stubbs (Rev. C. W.) FOR CHRIST AND CITY. Sermons
and Addresses. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Tait (Archbishop)
THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Being the Charge delivered at his Primary Visitation. 3rd Edition.
8vo. 35. 6d.
DUTIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Being seven
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.
Taylor (Isaac). THE RESTORATION OF BELIEF. Crown
8vo. 8s. 6d.
THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 17
Temple (Right Rev. Frederick, Bishop of London)
SERMONS PREACHED IN THE CHAPEL OF RUGBY
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.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.
Bampton Lectures, 1884. 7th and Cheaper Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Trench (Archbishop). HULSEAN LECTURES. 8vo. 75. 6d.
Tulloch (Principal). THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS
AND THE CHRIST OF MODERN CRITICISM. Extra
fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d.
Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff)
MEMORIALS OF HARROW SUNDAYS. 5th Edition. Crown
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.
LIFE'S WORK AND GOD'S DISCIPLINE. 3rd Edition.
Extra fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
THE WHOLESOME WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. and
Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
FOES OF FAITH. 2nd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d.
CHRIST SATISFYING THE INSTINCTS OF HUMANITY.
2nd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d.
COUNSELS FOR YOUNG STUDENTS. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
THE TWO GREAT TEMPTATIONS. 2nd Ed. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d.
ADDRESSES FOR YOUNG CLERGYMEN. Extra fcap. 8vo.
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.
LESSONS OF THE CROSS AND PASSION. WORDS FROM
THE CROSS. THE REIGN OF SIN. THE LORD'S
PRAYER. Four Courses of Lent Lectures. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d.
UNIVERSITY SERMONS. NEW AND OLD. Cr. 8vo. IDS. 6d.
NOTES FOR LECTURES ON CONFIRMATION. I4th Edition.
Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.
Vaughan (Rev. D. J.) THE PRESENT TRIAL OF FAITH.
Crown 8vo. 95.
18 MACMILLAN AND CO/S THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE
Vaughan (Rev. E. T.) SOME REASONS OF OUR CHRIS-
TIAN HOPE. Hulsean Lectures for 1875. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Vaughan (Rev. Robert). STONES FROM THE QUARRY.
Sermons. Crown 8vo. 55.
Venn (Rev. John). ON SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF
BELIEF, SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS. Hulsean Lec-
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)
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, MANIFOLD AND ONE. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
ON THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.
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.
FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. Three Sermons (In Mem-
oriam J. B. D.) Crown 8vo. 2s.
THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. 4th Edition.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE HISTORIC FAITH. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. 6th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Crown 8vo. 6s.
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL. Cr. 8vo. is. 6d.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ESSAYS IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN
THE WEST. Globe 8vo. 6s.
Wickham (Rev. E. C.) WELLINGTON COLLEGE
SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Wilson (Ven. J. M., Archdeacon of Manchester)
SERMONS PREACHED IN CLIFTON COLLEGE CHAPEL,
1879-83. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SERMONS PREACHED IN CLIFTON COLLEGE CHAPEL.
Second Series. 1888-90. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
OF OUR TIME. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Wood (Rev. E. G.) THE REGAL POWER OF THE
CHURCH. 8vo. 45. 6d.
WORSHIP (THE) OF GOD, AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG MEN.
By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
Printed by R. & R. CLARK, Edinburgh
11.20.4.91
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
RENEWALS ONLY TEL. NO. 642-3405
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate r<
"APRW970T2"
RE
APR 7 1970
LD2lA-60m-6,'69
(J9096slO)476-A-32
General Library
University of Californu
Berkeley
