'catcheth away' that which was sown' or 'hath been sown,' whether it dureth' or 'endureth' for a while, or whether it is choked by the care of the world' or 'of this world.' Amongst needless changes is the substitution of 'beach' for shore' as the translation of aiyaλós; for beach' in modern English generally connotes a tide-washed coast, which, though it answers to one explanation of the etymology of the Greek, imports a false idea when applied to the lake of Galilee. The only other word translated shore' is xeos (literally, lip), which in its secondary sense only occurs once (Heb. xi. 12), where it might have retained the translation of the Authorised Version. In Luke ii. 43 is another change which strikes us as worse than unnecessary: 'The boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem.' It is true that the Evangelist has up to this point used maidíov to designate the infant Saviour; but in the verses describing the tarrying behind in Jerusalem, he uses Taîs. Still the marking of this subtle difference is dearly purchased by the employment of boy.' In the Authorised Version the translators, recognising the flexibility of the word, render it by child,' men servants,' servant,' and, with the feminine article, 'maid' and' maiden ;' the present revisers depart from their rule of uniform rendering, but, straining out the gnat of maid,' they add to the 'studied variety' of their predecessors boy' and 'lad' (Acts xx. 12); thus employing six equivalents for waîs, and translating wardápiov by the same word as they use for rais. These alterations are made in face of the statement in the preface: If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorised Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English word might have prescribed some alteration.'

6

We have noted the following verbal alterations which strike us as unhappy in the Epistles:- Are we in worse case than 'they' (posyous@a) (Rom. iii. 9); I glorify my ministry' (Rom. xi. 13), in diligence not slothful' (Tỷ σπoudy) (Rom. xii. 11), translated in New Version haste" in Gospels, 'care' and earnest care' in Corinthians, and diligence' generally: the surge' (Avdor, translated raging of in Luke viii. 24) of the sea' (James i. 6); every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom can be no variation neither shadow that is cast by turning (James i. 17); being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh (James i. 25); Behold how much wood is kindled by how much fire' (James iii. 5); spiritual milk

'which is without guile' (1 Pet. ii. 2). In the Apocalypse (Rev. xvi. passim), bowl' takes the place of vial; and we read, Go ye, and pour out the seven bowls of the wrath of God into the earth. . . and the second poured out 'his bowl into the sea,' and so ad nauseam, till we find the seventh angel pouring out his bowl upon the air.' But the most unfortunate alteration of all is in James iii. 3. The Authorised Version reads, 'Behold, we put bits in the horses' 'mouths, that they may obey us.' In an unexpected manner the passion for uniformity overpowered the revisers, and finding xaλvós translated bridle' in Rev. xiv. 20, they furnished us with the extraordinary statement: If (ei dè, not idoù) we put the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also.' To put a bridle into a horse's mouth would be an unusual operation, and its results upon the horse are not easily calculable. We are quite aware of the authorised translation of 2 Kings xix. 28, 'I 'will put my bridle in thy lips;' but this metaphorical use of 'bridle' is no excuse for the gratuitous alteration in the translation of xavós. We speak metaphorically of bridling our tongue (aivaywyśw), because the verb 'to bit' is confined to the colloquialism of the stable, or to treatises on horsemanship. We adduce this as an instance of the attention paid. to minutiae, and with disastrous results, in the New Version.

6

We may here notice one or two minute points in which the conduct of the revisers has perplexed us. They have retained the obsolete unto,' and established a difference between it and to." We are at a loss to understand by what authority this subtle distinction is made, and why it is so essential that the words of the Authorised Version must be changed to effect it. At first it seemed as though it were intended to keep unto' for πpós, and 'to' for some other preposition; but seeing that we were still allowed to read to Herod' (Matt. ii. 12), and in many other places, and that Matt. xxi. 1, we read, "And when they drew nigh unto (sis) Jerusalem, ' and were come unto (eis, A. V. to) Bethphage, unto (sis) the Imount of Olives,' and that in Mark xi. 1, at the mount of Olives, πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, is still permissible, we are unable to see why an archaic form was retained and even inserted. In a similar direction is the inconsistency we have noticed of sometimes substituting who' or that' for 'which,' and occasionally enabling us to hear the cries of them that have reaped; and in the course of a few verses to call 'them blessed which endured.' It also seems incredible that the keen vision which detects an error so minute as 6 on' for

6

VOL. CLIV. NO. CCCXV.

6

N

6

6

upon,' and requires us to alter to he fell upon (A.V. on, ' with acc.) his face' (Luke xvii. 16), but to leave 'fell on (ì with acc.) his neck' (Luke xv. 20), should not see the confusion that must arise if the difference between 'will' and 'shall' is not preserved in the sentence one of you shall betray me; yet two changes in the words are made in John xvi. 13, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide (will, A.V.). . . . and he shall (will, A. V.) declare," and so through this and other chapters; but in v. 9, he, when he 'is come, will convict.' Of course, these and many other changes will be defended by very subtle reasons, but the minds that entertained them ought to have consistently preserved the exact English use of shall' and 'will.' On the other hand, we do not blame the revisers for refusing to discriminate between ὁ διάβολος and τὰ δαιμονία. We have no desire to read, as the purists would have us, 'In the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons,' which sounds like a line out of a burlesque.

6

6

The alterations proposed in the Lord's Prayer will provoke much comment. The substitution of have forgiven' for 'for'give' follows, as does the omission of the doxology, from the adoption of the more correct reading. Another alterationbring' for lead '-preserves a uniform rendering for siopέpw, and is therefore defensible if not necessary; but the most serious change is evil one' for the indefinite evil.' It must be allowed that this translation is lawful, though we do not believe it to be expedient. As a mere grammatical question the mas culine or the neuter is equally defensible, and Toû πovηρoû may be turned about whither,' as the Revised Version reads, the impulse of the steersman willeth.' No argument can be drawn from the use of arò rather than éx, as the Septuagint rendering of Ps. cxlii. 6 shows, ῥῦσαί με ἐκ τῶν καταδιωκόντων με· ἐξάγαγε ἐκ φυλακῆς τὴν ψυχήν μου; and, in what sounds exceedingly like an echo of the Lord's Prayer, St. Paul writes, 'The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom, to whom be the glory for Fever and ever (ῥύσεταί με ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου Tоvηρоû K.T.λ., 2 Tim. iv. 18). He, also, bids Christians to πονηροῦ abhor τὸ πονηρόν, and to cleave τῷ ἀγαθῷ, Rom. xii. 9. That this use of To Tоvnpòv was not unfamiliar to Jews who read Greek appears from the Septuagint translation of Ps. li. 4, To πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα (I did evil before thee”), and occurs in that most familiar phrase which runs through the historical books of the Old Testament, The children of Israel 'did evil (rò Tovnpòv) in the sight of the Lord.' If we turn

for help to the versions, we find the Peshito leaves it in the original vagueness (bîshó), and translates thirteen passages by this indefinite term, as in 1 John ii. 13, where we read, have overcome the evil one,' it reads, 'have overcome the evil.' The same ambiguity prevails in the Cureton fragments, where in the Lord's Prayer it is simply rendered evil.' St. Matthew's usage of v т кρуπτ in the immediate context might be pressed to counterbalance the undoubted use of o Tovηpòs for the evil one.' The Greek fathers, from Ignatius downwards, apparently take the view of Tоû Tоvnрoû being a masculine form. But as this is not a question of interpreting an unusual word, but of assigning the correct meaning to a dubious phrase, the judgment of the early Christian writers is deprived of much of its weight by their readiness to attribute unusual and peculiarly unfortunate circumstances to demoniacal agency. A careful study of the prayer itself will, we believe, establish the soundness of Cremer's decision on this passage:] Against 'the rendering which would take Tоû Tоvnрoû as the genitive ' of the masculine, it is enough to say that there is no reason or pretext in the context for making this possible rendering necessary. The thought which suggests this rendering is 'foreign to the character of the prayer, and we see the inappropriateness of it by putting ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου for ἀπὸ τοῦ TOVηpou. We cannot see why the broad and deep meaning'the evil inflicted by wickedness or by the wicked-should 'not suffice.'* It is just here we join issue with the revisers. The majority of them have deposed an ancient rendering from a form of devotion, and on contested if not insufficient evidence have put a most distasteful one in its place. They may consider that faithfulness necessitated the alteration; but we see no such necessity, and we believe the general opinion supports us.

In that gem of the apostolic writings, the eulogium of the queen of the Christian virtues contained in 1 Cor. xiii., the revisers had to decide between the rival claims of charity' and 'love.' When Jerome, the most skilful critic of his day, was confronted with a similar problem, he adopted 'caritas' as the best Latin equivalent for the ȧyáπn, which does not occur in profane writers and appears to have been invented by the Sep

Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon, sub voce. Cf. also his remarks on puolat άrò in which he strengthens his case. Alford's opinion is too well known to require citation, and many continental scholars of divergent theological opinions maintain the broader rendering.

tuagint translators. The wisdom of his expedient has been acknowledged by the many languages that have appropriated his word; but 'charity' in common speech is subject to the drawback that it is applied principally to almsgiving or to the exhibition of a tolerant spirit. 'Love,' on the other hand, while it covers a wide area of emotions, is too passionate to prove an acceptable substitute for the more sonorous' charity: Amor 'Tálos; caritas eos,' says Quinctilian. We should have been glad if the revisers had risen above the restrictions of their 'ordinary rules and retained 'charity' in the text. A marginal note might have conveyed the information that elsewhere the Greek term was translated 'love.' The scorn of the literalists would have been more than counterbalanced by the approval of readers who would instinctively divine that this venerable and rhythmical word was specially consecrated to the use of the Apostle, that he might describe more accurately and more impressively the inexpressible grace of that love which never shone in the eyes of men till God had given them the Son of His Love. Indeed, the revisers have been guilty of a greater inconsistency on a smaller provocation. Four times have they translated Пapákλntos by Comforter,' eking out its meaning with marginal alternatives and the Greek word itself; in the fifth place they have retained Advocate,' thus conveying the idea to the English reader that there is some difference between the meaning of the word in the Gospels and the Epistle. In strictness this is so, and very similar is the difference between the use of ȧyáπη in 1 Cor. xiii., and its use in other passages. The Comforter of the Gospels has his work defined in more detail than the Advocate of the Epistle, as the charity' of St. Paul is more fully delineated than the 'love' of St. John. A similar inconsistency marks their translation of τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ̔́Αγιον, which is generally rendered by the ancient and obsolete word Ghost,' to the serious loss of the illiterate poor; but in 1 Cor. xii. 2, and elsewhere in consequence of a supposed necessity arising from the context, we readHoly Spirit.' A similar boldness in the case of άyáπη would not have missed its reward.

This may be a fitting place to add a few words upon the revisers' alterations in connexion with the rendering Holy Ghost or Spirit. They have added to the few times the Authorised Version employed Spirit' for πveûμa, as in John vii. 39, xiv. 26, Acts ii. 4, and some other passages. But they have also given a masculine pronoun in immediate sequence after the neuter noun. They may hastily be charged with adopting this rendering through theological bias. But they are