Fifthly, In the cases, comparatively few in number, in which the state of the evidence indicates that words or sentences, whose loss will be a matter of regret, should be changed or omitted, the sound judgment of thinking men will decide that it is better to give up what does not have a true place in the Scriptures, than to retain it merely because we have become familiar with it, and dislike to see it no longer. For example, in Luke viii, 48, (where the question of insertion or omission is quite unimportant, since these words are certainly to be found in the parallel passage in Matthew,) the words, be of good comfort, may safely be omitted, because it can be made clear that the evidence against them is strongly preponderating. If the same fact can be established with regard to verses of far higher consequence, as those containing the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi, 13, or the statement respecting the descent of the angel at the pool of Bethesda, John v, 3, 4, or the story of the woman taken in adultery, John vii, 53 to viii, 11, or the concluding passage of Mark's Gospel, xvi, 9 to 20, it will, within a few years at the latest, and after the evidence has been candidly considered, be admitted that the rejection of them altogether, or the indication in some way of the condition of the case as it actually stands, is the right course to be taken. If, on the other hand, in these or other passages, the evidence is more evenly balanced, but yet is such as to make them doubtful, it will be held by candid men everywhere that the two possible readings ought to be given by the revisers; the one which they judge to be best supported, to be inserted in the text, and the other in the margin.

Sixthly, In the case of passages where different readings are found in the Greek text, and where, at the

same time, doctrines are involved, the course which has just been alluded to must be the fair and proper one. Happily these passages are few in number, and they are not vital to the establishment of the doctrines; but, if the Revision does not deal honestly with them, it cannot satisfy the enlightened judgment of the Church. If the evidence in any particular case stands as ninety or ninety-nine to one against the genuineness of a verse, the verse in question should be treated accordingly. If it is but as fifty to forty, the Revised Version should give the translation of the better accredited reading in the text, and should add, in the margin, the alternate reading with some statement as to the degree of support which it can claim.

With respect to all these doubtful passages, and all those which clearly ought to be rejected, such changes may be introduced into the Greek text on which our Authorized Version was founded, as shall prove worthy of adoption either for the text or the margin of the new Revision, without violating the just demands of conservatism. On the other hand, no changes of a more sweeping character can be insisted upon by those who are not radical in an extreme and unworthy sense. The constitution of a body like the present Anglo-American Committee of Revisers, which represents both countries and many denominations, and the rules of which require a two-thirds vote for every alteration before it can be finally adopted, is the best guarantee that, in regard to the Greek text as well as the English, the progressive element, will be sufficiently tempered and guided by the conservative, while the conservative will have the truly healthful influence of the progressive. By reason of this fact the success of the New Revision may be hoped for with great confidence.

THE GREEK VERB IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY THE REV. MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D.,

Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.

No revision can present to the English reader all the exact shades of meaning expressed by the voices, moods, and tenses of the Greek verb. This must be admitted at the outset. Yet in many cases greater accuracy can be secured. It is doubtful whether the true theory of the Greek tenses was accepted at the time the Authorized Version was made. It is certain that a great deal of ignorance still exists on this subject, even among those claiming some scholarship. If there be one point clearly established, it is that in Greek a writer used the aorist tense to express an action conceived of by him as momentary rather than continuous. Yet a long article in one of our prominent Reviews states that the aorist refers to past time of indefinite duration. This blunder arose from the fact that the name aorist means indefinite. But the indefiniteness of the tense consists mainly in its indefinite relation to other tenses, and not in its indefinite duration. Hence, the Greeks might express an action the most definite logically by this grammatically "indefinite" tense. This example of misapprehension may serve as preface to some remarks on the difficulty of reproducing the shades of thought expressed by the Greek verb.

I. The Greek verb has three voices, while the English has only two. It has one more mood than the English, but this one is of rare occurrence in the New Testament. The great difficulty lies in the fact that it not only has tenses for which the English forms

furnish no exact equivalent, but tenses are carried into moods, and exist in participial forms altogether unknown to our grammar. It may be said that a Greek author had nearly twice as many forms at his command as we have, each having its distinctive use. This, of itself, presents a difficulty to the translator.

II. The difficulty is enhanced by another fact. The distinctions of the Greek verb, especially of the tenses, are not precisely identical with those of the English verb. A literal translation of a tense in the former language into one bearing the same name in the latter might be very inaccurate. The same is true of Greek and Latin, German and English. It is rare that two languages, even when they have the same number of tenses, present thereby the same distinctions. Just here, one who speaks a foreign language quite well, betrays himself most frequently before those "to the manner born." The Latin has fewer tenses than the Greek, and these not exactly equivalent to the corresponding Greek ones. Hence, the translators of the Authorized Version, like all the scholars of that period, frequently lost sight of the distinctions of the less familiar language, and used those of the Latin, which might, in the case of most of them, be called their second mother-tongue.

It will not be necessary to set forth in detail here the theory of the Greek tenses. Suffice it to say, that while the distinctions of past, present, and future appear in the indicative mood, there is combined with these a distinction of action, whether as continuous or momentary. In the non-indicative moods, the latter distinction is the preponderant one, often the sole one; as, for example, in the imperatives, present and aorist. The participles pre

sent the same distinction, but they are often only condensed statements of what might be expressed by the indicative. Hence, it is often difficult to determine whether an aorist participle is better translated by our English past or present participle, i. e., whether it expresses an action antecedent to or synchronous with the leading verb. A mechanical student of Greek grammar has no difficulty here; as a school-boy he learned that rúas meant "having struck,” and so he regards all instances as 'equivalent to the English perfect participle. The most convenient distinction of tenses is that between the aorist and imperfect indicative the former pointing to a past act viewed as momentary, the latter to a continued past action. But in the use of the imperfect there is generally a reference to some other action, up to which this "imperfect" action continued. Hence, the tense may express only the beginning of an action which was at once interrupted, or, on the other hand, may refer to an habitual or long-continued action. The perfect tense has no equivalent in English, since it refers to what took place in the past, and continues either as part of the same action, or as a result of it, up to the present time of the speaker or writer. Here we may use the English perfect or present, as seems most appropriate; but neither of them expresses all that is indicated by the Greek.

These distinctions are carried over into subjunctive, participial, and infinitive forms, and any one who bestows a moment's thought will see how dif ficult it is for us, with our English forms, to express such shades of thought. Then it will happen that, there being no exact English equivalent, two English forms will be equally accurate or inaccurate.