persons-between 'His own home' and 'His own people.' Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength in the English rendering which no one would willingly 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 rendering of different verbs: 1 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 propositions. The original however is ἢ ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν; ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; where the fault of the English Version is twofold; the same word is used in rendering ἐξῆλθεν and κατήντησεν, and μóvovs 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 only1?'

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. ν. 32 is πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχάται, where

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 avλn fold and Toiμvn flock in John x. 16, where in our Version the same word fold stands for both', though the point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock; of doûλo and diákovo 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'; of kó

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 adultery. 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 μοιχευθῆναι (not μοιχᾶσθαι), 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 μaxevonvai had the false reading μ¤xâodai; but, the correct text being restored, a corresponding change in the English rendering is necessary. Compare 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 doûλoi, diákovo by 'servants,' 'ministers,' respectively. The Rheims Version has 'waiters' for diákovo. In this case the Geneva Bible was the first to obliterate the distinction, which was preserved even in the Bishops'.

φινοι and σπυρίδες 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 Onpía 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 ἦν δὲ ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ...ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγει ‘Now there was leaning on 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 ἀνακείμενοs, and the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by avaπeσov. This distinction is further enforced in the original by a change

in both the prepositions and the nouns, from ev to ἐπί, and from κόλπος to στῆθος. S. John was reclining on the bosom of his Master, and he suddenly 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'in xxi. 20 ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, 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 generally, and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus' life, where the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches

1 The word avaπíπтew 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. Phædr. 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, ἐπιπεσὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος K.T.A., but the correct reading is as given above. The substitution of ETITEσ however does not tell in favour of our translators; for this word ought to have shown, even more clearly than ȧvareow, that a change of posture was intended. The ourws, which appears in the correct text and gives an additional touch to the picture, has a parallel in iv. 6 ékadéšeto oűrws ¿ml tŷ #ŋyû. In xxi. 20 there is no various reading.

L. R.

6

of the picture should be blurred in our English Bibles.

Again, in 1 Cor. xiv. 20 μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, much force is lost by the English rendering, 'Be not children in understanding; 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 distinction between παιδια and νήπιοι. Again in this same chapter (ver. 7) ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα... ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ 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 φωνὴ and φθόγγος ; and yet our translators did not fail through poverty of expression, for three verses below they have rendered poval voices and apwvov without signification. In the margin they suggest tunes for $0óyyoɩs, and this would be preferable to retaining the same word. As póyyos is used especially of musical sounds, perhaps 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) ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπου