The Revision Revised Part 8

for "As soon then as they were come to land" (ver. 9):-"the things _concerning_," for "the things pertaining to the kingdom of G.o.d" (Acts i.

3):-"as G.o.d'S_ steward_," for "as the steward of G.o.d" (t.i.t. i. 7): but "the _belly of the whale_" for "the whale's belly" (S. Matth. xii. 40), and "_device of man_" for "man's device" in Acts xvii. 29.-These, and hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest wantonness. After subst.i.tuting "_therefore_" for "then" (as the rendering of ???) a score of times,-the Revisionists quite needlessly subst.i.tute "_then_" for "therefore" in S. Jo. xix. 42.-And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of "the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius," been exchanged for "unto _Gaius the beloved_"? (3 John, ver. 1).

(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find "he that _doeth_ sin," subst.i.tuted for "he that committeth sin;" and "_To this end_" put in the place of "For this purpose" (1 Jo. iii. 8):-"_have beheld_" and "_bear witness_," for "have seen and do testify" (iv. 14):-"_hereby_" for "by this" (v.

2):-"_Judas_" for "Jude" (Jude ver. 1), although "_Mark_" was subst.i.tuted for "Marcus" (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and "_Timothy_" for "Timotheus" (in Phil.

i. 1):-"how that they _said to_ you," for "how that they told you" (Jude ver. 18).-But why go on? The subst.i.tution of "_exceedingly_" for "greatly"

in Acts vi. 7:-"_the birds_" for "the fowls," in Rev. xix.

21:-"_Almighty_" for "Omnipotent" in ver. 6:-"_throw down_" for "cast down," in S. Luke iv. 29:-"_inner chamber_" for "closet," in vi. 6:-these are _not_ "necessary" changes.... We will give but three instances more:-In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, "whom _resist_, stedfast in the faith," has been altered into "whom _withstand_." But how is "withstand" a better rendering for ??t?st?te, than "resist"? "Resist," at all events, _was the Revisionists' word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.-Why also subst.i.tute "the _race_" (for "the kindred") "of Joseph" in Acts vii. 13, although ????? was rendered "kindred" in iv. 6?-Do the Revisionists think that "_fastening their_ eyes on him" is a better rendering of ?te??sa?te?

e?? a?t?? (Acts vi. 15) than "_looking stedfastly_ on him"? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found "_earnestly beholding_ the council," they must needs alter the phrase into "_looking stedfastly_." It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not _Necessity_,-an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V., not the discovery of "_plain and clear errors_"-has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance.

II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their NEW GREEK TEXT,-"the necessary foundation of" their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists' disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be "_indicated in the margin_." This "proved inconvenient," say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at whatever "inconvenience," you were bound to do this,-partly because the Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. How comes it to pa.s.s that you have _never_ furnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?

For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which is found in every princ.i.p.al edition of the Greek Testament-excepting always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of "Various Readings," that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf's last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any means that they have commemorated _actual_ "alternative Readings" in their margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent Errors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,-have not made the slightest allusion to,-hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text_.

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by "Some" (or by "Many") "ancient authorities,"-are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense ma.s.s; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the "ancient Authorities" so referred to:-nor what proportion they bear to the "ancient Authorities" producible on the opposite side:-nor whether they are the _most_ "ancient Authorities" obtainable:-nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal a.s.sertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that _in cases where _"it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,"_ _"alternative Readings" have been given "in the margin." So that the "Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y sweat" of the World's REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),-and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii.

34),-and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever. At all events, "_it would not be safe_," (_i.e._ _it is not safe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,-

(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are informed that "Some ancient authorities omit _the Son of _G.o.d." Why are we _not_ informed that every known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,-every cursive _but two_,-_every Version_,-and the following Fathers,-all _contain_ the precious clause: viz. Irenaeus,-Porphyry,-Severia.n.u.s of Gabala,-Cyril Alex.,-Victor Ant.,-and others,-besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:-while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and t.i.tus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake?

To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not rather told so?_

(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,-"without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life," &c.,-and the following absurd alternative,-"Without him was not anything made. _That which hath been made was life in him_; and the life," &c. But we are _not_ informed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as dest.i.tute of authority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_

(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse ("No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man-_which is in heaven_"), is not found in "many ancient authorities." But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) is _a circ.u.mstance of no Textual significancy whatever_?

Why, above all, are we not a.s.sured that the precious clause in question (?

?? ?? t? ???a??) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?-is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,-aethiopic,-Georgian,-and Armenian?(440)-is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,(441)-Hippolytus,(442)-Athanasius,(443)-Didymus,(444)-Aphraates the Persian,(445)-Basil the Great,(446)-Epiphanius,(447)-Nonnus,-ps.-Dionysius Alex.,(448)-Eustathius;(449)-by Chrysostom,(450)-Theodoret,(451)-and Cyril,(452) each 4 times;-by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on Christmas Day, A.D. 431);-by Theodoras Mops.,(454)-Amphilochius,(455)-Severus,(456)-Theodorus Heracl.,(457)-Basilius Cil.,(458)-Cosmas,(459)-John Damascene, in 3 places,(460)-and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)-besides Ambrose,(462)-Novatian,(463)-Hilary,(464)-Lucifer,(465)-Victorinus,-Jerome,(466)-Ca.s.sian,-Vigilius,(467)-Zeno,(468)-Marius,(469)-Maximus Taur.,(470)-Capreolus,(471)-Augustine, &c.:-is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we not told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,-_why_, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a ma.s.s of counter-evidence exists?(472)... Shame,-yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,-yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,-finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct "_plain and clear errors_" in the _English_ "Authorized Version,"-occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,-yes, _shame_ upon them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin-(_a_) of S. Mark i.

1 and-(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and-(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, enc.u.mbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S.

John iii. 13 the words ? ?? ?? t? ???a??, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of "_fearless_"!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in _the Revised Text_.

(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18-

"Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six."

Against this, we find noted,-"Some ancient authorities read _six hundred and sixteen_."

But why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that _only one_ corrupt uncial (C):-_only one_ cursive copy (11):-_only one_ Father (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version-advocates this reading?-which, on the contrary, Irenaeus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is "found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face," is unquestionably the true reading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)-by Hippolytus,(475)-by Eusebius:(476)-as well as by Victorinus-and Primasius,-not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,-even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore-for what possible reason-at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?

Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because "it would not be safe to accept" 666, "to the absolute exclusion of" 616?... "We have given _alternative Readings_ in the margin," (say they,) "wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice." Will they venture to claim either "interest"

or "importance" for _this_? or pretend that it is an "alternative Reading"

_at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage "those that have understanding," and would fain "count the number of the Beast," if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt-one more miserable suspicion-into minds which have been taught (_and rightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.

(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair _Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. "We have given alternative Readings in the margin,"-(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)-"_wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._" [iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever "alternative Readings" are _not_ "given in the margin," it is because such Readings do _not_ "seem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice_." Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,-(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)-our LORD's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not "of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice"? We allude to the famous words,-"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:"-words which are not only omitted from the "New English Version," but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, aethiopic and Gothic Versions:-by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:-by Irenaeus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,-whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,-the genuineness of the pa.s.sage may be regarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite "safe to accept" the shorter reading,-"to the _absolute exclusion_ of the other."-So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call "unfair Suppression," must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the Deposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.

III. From the Text, the Revisionists pa.s.s on to the TRANSLATION; and surprise us by the avowal, that "the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,-'to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.' Our task was Revision, not Retranslation." (This is _nave_ certainly.) They proceed,-

"If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized 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 modification."-[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are our own.)

To the "_rule_" thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five princ.i.p.al Cla.s.ses of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,-"Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text" (_Ibid._).

(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find "_Suffer her to keep it_ against the day of my burying;" and in the margin (as an alternative), "Let her alone: _it was that she might keep it_."-Instead of "as soon as JESUS heard the word,"-we are invited to choose between "_not heeding_," and "_overhearing_ the word" (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of pa?a???sa?,-an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.-"On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_" (S. Lu.

ii. 14): where the margin informs us that "many ancient authorities read, _good pleasure among men_." (And why not "_good will_,"-the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:-"Why _askest thou me concerning that which is good_?" (Matth. xix. 17,-an absurd fabrication).-"He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks," &c....

"and I perish _here_ with hunger!" (???tas???a?, borrowed from Lu. xvi.

21: and e?O???de, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).-"When _it shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles" (xvi.

9).--Elizabeth "lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_" (??a???-the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).-"And _they stood still looking sad_" (xxiv. 17,-a foolish transcriptional blunder).-"The mult.i.tude _went up_ and began to ask him," &c. (??a?? for ??a??sa?, Mk.

xv. 8).-"But is guilty of _an eternal sin_" (iii. 29).-"And the officers _received Him_ with blows of their hands,"-marg. "or _strokes of rods_:"

?????? for ?????? (xiv. 65).-"Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it, _the new from the old_" (ii. 21): and "No man _rendeth a piece from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend the new_," &c. (Lu. v. 36).-"What is this? _a new teaching!_" (Mk. i.

27).-"JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_" (Mk. ix. 23).-"Because of your _little __ faith_"(Matth. xvii. 20).-"_We must_ work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day" (Jo. ix. 4).-"_The man that is called_ JESUS made clay" (ver. 11).-"If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_"

(xiv. 14).-"The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_" (xiv. 10).-"If ye shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_" (xvi.

23).-"I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which Thou hast given Me to do" (xvii. 4).-"Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given me" (ver. 11, 12).-"She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni"

(xx. 16).-"These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory" (xii.

41,-??? for ???, a common itacism).-"In tables _that are hearts of flesh_"

(?? p?a?? ?a?d?a?? sa????a??, a "perfectly absurd reading," as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).-"_Now if_ we put the horses' bridles [and pray, why not 'the horses' _bits_'?] into their mouths" (????, an ordinary itacism for ???, James iii. 3).-"Unto the sick were _carried away from his body_ handkerchiefs," &c. (Acts xix. 12).-"_Ye know all things once for all_" (Jude ver. 5).-"_We love_ because he first loved us" (1 Jo. iv.

19).-"I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my G.o.d" (Rev. iii.

2).-"Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_" (xv. 6), instead of "clothed in linen," ????? for ?????. (Fancy the Angels "_clothed in stone_"! "Precious" is an interpolation of the Revisers).-"_Dwelling in_ the things which he hath seen:" for which the margin offers as an alternative, "_taking his stand upon_" (Colossians ii. 18). But ?ate???

(the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S.

Paul is delivering a warning against unduly "_prying into_ the things _not_ seen."(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the "_not_." That is all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a change in the English "positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:" every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.-Take only two more: "I neither know, nor understand: _thou, what sayest thou?_" (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):-"And _whither I go, ye know the way_" (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.

(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. "appeared to be incorrect" or else "obscure." They must needs be such as the following:-"He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet" (S.

John xiii. 10).-"LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_"

(s???seta?, xi. 12).-"Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_"

(Matth. xxii. 9).-"Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart" (Mk.

iii. 5).-"Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_" (Matt. v.

15).-"Sitting at _the place of toll_" (ix. 9).-"The supplication of a righteous man availeth much _in its working_" (James v. 16).-"Awake up _righteously_" (1 Cor. xv. 34).-"_Guarded_ through faith unto _a salvation_" (1 Pet. i. 5).-"Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_"

(Heb. xi. 38-very queer places certainly to be "wandering" in).-"_She that is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you" (1 Pet. v.

13).-"Therefore do _these powers work in Him_" (Matth. xiv. 2).-"In danger of the _h.e.l.l of fire_" (v. 22).-"_Put out_ into the deep" (Luke v.

4).-"The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_" (Acts vii. 16).

With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to a.s.sert that they are either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that "_the hire of wrong-doing_" is better than "_the wages of unrighteousness_" (2 Pet.

ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, "Come and _dine_"-"so when they _had dined_,"-is a hundred times better than "Come and _break your fast_"-"so when they _had broken their fast_" (Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?-expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write "breakfast" and "breakfasted."

The seven had not been "_fasting_." Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,-any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?

Has the reader any appet.i.te for more specimens of "incorrectness"

_remedied_ and "obscurity" _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_ been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it "_Or_"?-Also, why translate ?????

"_race_"? ("a man of Cyprus _by race_," "a man of Pontus _by race_," "an Alexandrian _by race_," Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).-"_If_ there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body," say the Revisionists: "O death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?" (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)-Why alter "For the bread of G.o.d is _He_," into "For the bread of G.o.d is _that_ which cometh down from Heaven"? (Jo. vi. 33).-"_As long as I am_ in the world," was surely better than "_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world" (ix. 5).-Is "_He went forth out of_ their hand" supposed to be an improvement upon "_He escaped out of_ their hand"? (x. 39): and is "They loved _the glory_ of men more than _the glory_ of G.o.d" an improvement upon "the _praise_"?

(xii. 43).-"Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pa.s.s_ that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us"? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?-How is "_If then_" an improvement on "Forasmuch then" in Acts xi.

17?-or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,-"For that which I do, I _know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:"-or this, in xvi.

25, "The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_, but now is manifested," &c.-"Thou therefore, _my child_,"-addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and "t.i.tus, _my true child_,"-addressing the Bishop of Crete (t.i.t. i. 4).

Are the following deemed improvements? "Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_" (1 Jo. iii. 4): "I will _move_ thy candlestick out of its place" (Rev. ii. 5):-"a _gla.s.sy_ sea" (iv.

6):-"a _great_ voice" (v. 12):-"Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_, but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:"-"He _took hold of_ the blind man by _the hand_:"-"They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the Areopagus" (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):-"wherefore G.o.d is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their G.o.d" (Acts xi. 16):-"_Counted it not a prize_ to be on an equality with G.o.d" (Phil. ii. 6).-Why are we to subst.i.tute "_court_" for "palace" in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21?

(Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).-"Women received their dead _by a resurrection_" (Heb. xi. 35):-"If ye forgive not every one _his brother from their hearts_" (Matth. xviii. 35):-"If _because of meat_ thy brother is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_" (Rom. xiv. 15):-"which G.o.d, who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_ manifested _his word in the message_" (t.i.t. i. 2, 3):-"Your _pleasures_ [and why not 'l.u.s.ts'?] that war in your members" (James iv. 1):-"Behold _how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!" (iii. 5).-Are these really supposed to be less "obscure" than the pa.s.sages they are intended to supersede?

(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of ill.u.s.tration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,-"And _coming up_ at that very hour" (in Lu. ii.

38),-as well as "she _came up_ to Him" (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ?f?st??a?, which etymologically signifies "to stand upon," or "over," or "by,"-(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)-is found almost invariably to denote the "_coming suddenly upon_" a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,-(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))-"_coming suddenly in_" would probably represent S. Luke's ?p?st?sa exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word "suddenly" into the narrative. So that "_coming in_"

would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_.

In other words,-the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.