knew her shameful history-a highly improbable supposition, since she is obviously a stranger whose character our Lord reads through His divine intuition alone; whereas the true rendering, 'He talked with a woman,' which indeed alone explains the emphatic position of yvvauós, 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'. Again in Luke vi. 16 ὃς [καὶ] ἐγένετο προδότης ought not to be translated Which also was the traitor,' because the subsequent 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' (eis TÓλW TÊS Lauapeías), if the reading which our translators had before them be correct, because the rendering may lead to a wrong identification of the place. And lastly, Kaтà Éоρтý, 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, II. p. 543. 2 εἰς τὴν πόλιν however ought almost certainly to be read.

implied in the original expression and certainly is not required by the parallel passage in S. John (xviii. 39). Happily in another passage (John v. I μeтà тaûTA ηv ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων), which is important in its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's life, our translators have respected the omission of the article before éopτý; but that their accuracy in this instance was purely accidental appears from the fact that a chapter later (vi. 4) τὸ πάσχα ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων 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 translators, the following passages, in which almost every conceivable rule is broken, must be regarded as conclusive: Matt. iii. 4 avròs dè ó 'Iwávvns eixev tò ëvdvμa 'And the same John had his raiment' (where the true rendering 'But John himself' involves an antithesis of the prophetic announcement and the actual appearance of the Baptist); John iv. 37 év toútæ ó λóyos ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθινός Herein is that saying true; ib. ν. 44 τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ ' The honour that cometh from God only'; Acts xi. 17 Tηv loŋv δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν πιστεύσασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον ' God gave them the like gift as He did unto us who believed on the Lord'; 1 Cor. viii. 10, 12 ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος...τύπτοντες αὐτῶν

τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν ‘The conscience of him which is weak...wound their weak conscience'; 2 Cor. viii. 19 πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν 'To the glory of the same Lord'; I Tim.vi. 2 πιστοί εἰσιν καὶ ἀγαπητοὶ οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι ' They are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit'; ib. vi. 5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν 'Supposing that gain is godliness'; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕστηκεν ‘Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure'; Heb. vi. 8 ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους ἀδόκιμος ‘But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected '; ib. vi. 16 πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος 'Αη oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife'; ib. ix. 1 τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν ‘And a worldly sanctuary'; ib. x. 1 ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν ‘With those sacrifices which they offered'; Rev. xix. 9 οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοί εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ 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 ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, in which our Lord describes the Baptist, are translated in our Version 'He was a burning and a shining light.' Thus rendered, the expression appears as in

tended simply to glorify John. But this is not the sense which the context requires, and it is only attained by a flagrant disregard of the articles. Commentators have correctly pointed out that John is here called ὁ λύχνος ‘the lamp'; he was not τὸ φῶς 'the light' (i. 8)'; for Christ Himself and Christ only is 'the light' (i. 9, iii. 19, ix. 5, etc.). Thus the rendering of ó lúxvos is vitally wrong, as probably few would deny. But it has not been perceived how much the contrast between the Baptist and the Saviour is strengthened by a proper appreciation of the remaining words ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων. The word Kaie is 'to burn, to kindle,' as in Matt. v. 15 ovdè καίουσιν λύχνον Neither do men light a candle': so too Luke xii. 35 oi λúxvo kaιóμevo, Rev. iv. 5, viii. 10. Thus it implies that the light is not inherent, 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, transitory, 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 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς ‘He was not that light.

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

Of these dia 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 passages 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 translators, following the diction of their age, generally use 'of' and 'by' respectively-' of' denoting the agent (vπó), and 'by' the instrument or means (dia). This however is not universally the case, but vπò is sometimes translated 'by' (c.g. Luke ii. 18) and dià sometimes through' (e.g. John i. 7). Such exceptions 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 τῶν λαληθέντων αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν Tоμévæv 'those things which were told them of the shepherds'-a rendering still retained even in the Bishops' and Geneva Bibles, and first altered apparently by King James's revisers.

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