Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

perfect. True enough it is that 'the servants and the officers were standing. and were warming themselves:' Peter also 'was standing with them and was warming himself' (Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English unless we are about to add something which shall account for our particularity and precision. Anyone, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—' I left my house.' Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying, 'I was leaving the house.' A Greek writer would not trust this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, ( To me, leaving my house, &c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things. . . . 'If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar' (Matth. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like an exaggeration of the original. It sounds (and is) as unnatural as to say (in Lu. ii. 33) And His father a depravation of the text] and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him:'-or (in Heb. xi. 17) yea, he that had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son':-or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), 'the same heard Paul speaking.'

2

6

(c) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the Pluperfect. An instance meets us while we write: os dè èπaúσato λaλŵv (Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,- When He had left speaking.' Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because éπaúσаTo is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with the sign of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English? The R. V. has shown less consideration in Jo. xviii. 24,-where Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,' is right and wanted no revision. -Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph of Arimathea had hewn out' (èλaróμnσe) the new tomb which he gave to CHRIST: and S. Peter, of course, 'declared unto them how the LORD had brought him out of the prison' (enyayev): and it is impossible to substitute anything for "If Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest' (катéжаνσev).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few), where the aorist (often

1 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.
2 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.

an

an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), 'The LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth' (eBaoiλevoe).

It shall only be pointed out here in addition for the student's benefit that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Divines (as Eusebius), Poets (as Rogers), Painters (as West),—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come ;and all because men have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,―There had been a great earthquake: for the Angel of the LORD had descended from heaven, and come and rolled away (ȧπeкúλiσe) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.' Strange, that for 1800 years no Commentator should have perceived that the Evangelist is describing what terrified the keepers.' 'The women' saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!

(d) Then further (to dismiss the subject and pass on), there are occasions where the Greek perfect exacts the sign of the present at the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,-- Yea LORD, I believe that Thou art the CHRIST' (Jo. xi. 27). What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there I have believed,' as the English equivalent for TEπioTEUKA? On the other hand, there are Greek presents (whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring the sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely the future is inherent in the present epxoμai! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, 'I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you'?

(e) On the other hand, how does it happen that the inaccurate rendering οἱ ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in Matth. iii. 10, Lu. iii. 9?

V. Next concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, say the Revisionists,

'many changes have been made': we have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.-P. xix.

In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own, we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the reviewer and the reviewed: The sower went forth to sow' (Matth. xiii. 3). It is greater than the herbs' (ver. 32). 'Let

So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the R.V. of S. James i. 11.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

him be to thee as the Gentile and the publican' (xviii. 17). The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man' (xii. 43). Did I not choose you the twelve?' (Jo. vi. 70). If I then, the Lord and the master' (xiii. 14). For the joy that a man is born into the world' (xvi. 21). Alexander Alexander... would have made a defence unto the people' (Acts xix. 33). But as touching Apollos the brother' (1 Cor. xvi. 12). The Bishop must be blameless... able to exhort in the sound doctrine' (Tit. i. 7,9). The lust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full grown' &c. (Ja. i. 15). Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter' (iii. 11). Speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine' (Tit. ii. 1). (Tit. ii. 1). The time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine' (2 Tim. iv. 3). Thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance,' &c. (2 Pet. i. 11). Who is the liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?' (1 Jo. ii. 22). 'Not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood' (v. 6). He that hath the SON, hath the life: he that hath not the SON of GOD hath not the life' (ver. 12). 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling' (Heb. iii. 1). We had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us' (xii. 9). Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification (ver. 14). An eternal' (for the everlasting')' gospel to proclaim' (Rev. xiv. 6) and one like unto a son of man,' for one like unto the Son of Man' in ver. 14.-On the other hand, Kpaviov is rendered The skull' in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why. -These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

VI. The Revisionists announce that they have been particularly careful' as to THE PRONOUNS. We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed or offended. Annoyed-at their practice of repeating the nominative (e.g. in Mk. i. 13) to an extent unknown to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended-at their license of translation, when it suits them to be licentious. Thus (as the Bp. of S. Andrew's has well pointed out), it is He that' is an incorrect translation of autós in S. Matth. i. 21,-a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is 'He who' as the rendering of ős in 1 Tim. iii. 16, -another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.1 VII. In the case of THE PARTICLES' (say the Revisionists),

'Quarterly Review,' No. 304, pp. 361-6.

'We

'We have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of consistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a general uniformity of rendering.'-P. xix.

[ocr errors]

Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,-(especially at the period when the Greek language was in its decadence),—are the least capable of being drilled into a general uniformity of rendering'; and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy, which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case, uniformity of rendering' is precisely the thing of which they are incapable. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word; 1 sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered at all. Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.

[ocr errors]

3 "

1

94

(a) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence-dé. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words: and,' but,' 'yea,' 'what,' now,' and that," howbeit,' even,' therefore,' 10 'I say," 11 'also," 12 yet,' 6 13 for.'14 To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:-' wherefore,' 15 18 furthermore, yea and,'1 standing, 21yet but,' 22 truly,' 23 or,' 24 as for,' 25

over,

917 6

6

6

[ocr errors]

6

So,

19nevertheless,'

20

16more

' notwith

then,' 26 and

As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where dé is rendered "notwithstanding."

Eight times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, dé is not represented in the A.V. The ancients felt so keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A.V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the dé,-in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting and,' as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all. 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.

3

$ Rom. ix. 22.

Acts xxvii. 26.

11 2 Cor. v. 8.

61 Cor. xii. 27.

Rom. iii. 22.

12 S. Mark xv. 31.

15 S. Matth. vi. 30.
19 2 Cor. ii. 12.

14 1 Cor. x. 1.
18 2 Cor. vii. 13.
21 S. Matth. ii. 22.
24 S. Matth. xxv. 39.

4 Rom. xiv. 4.
Gal. ii. 4.
10 Ephes. iv. 1.

13 S. Mark vi. 29.

16 S. John xx. 4. 17 2 Cor. i. 23.

22 1 Cor. xii. 20.
25 Acts viii. 3.

20 2 Pet. iii. 13.

23 1 S. John i. 3.

26 Rom. xii. 6. yet.'

yet.' It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of but' or 'and' on most of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611-above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them-produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as a spirit of servile pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room, and the hypothesis that μév means indeed,' and début.' We will subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.' Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that dé means but,' and yielding to the supposed 'necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,') substitute, But now they are many members, but one body."' Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that dé occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by 'but' in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, 'YET BUT' ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected many times in every page. But to proceed.

[ocr errors]

(b) The interrogative particle occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,-being apparently invested with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative eh?' But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by Pray',2-being at least equivalent to pépe in Greek or age in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it what?'-by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where this word occurs, King James's translators are observed to have given it up in despair. But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) has 1 S. Matth. vi. 29. 2 As in S. Matth. vii. 9; xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii, 29. 3 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.

invariably

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »