It will appear that it is no easy task to make a faithful translation, and also that there is little danger of such excellence in the revision as will supersede the study of the Greek Testament.

any

III. It may be useful to note some examples where improvement seems both desirable and possible, as well as some where it is impossible. These might be indefinitely multiplied.

1. The Authorized Version, in hundreds of instances, renders the Greek aorist by the English perfect. This is almost always incorrect. The simple English past tense is well-nigh the exact equivalent of the aorist. In many cases, indeed, the meaning is scarcely altered by the more exact rendering, yet. frequently the correction is of great moment. In Matt. i, 25, instead of "had brought forth," the Greek means "brought forth;" in ii, 2, "saw" should be substituted for "have seen." Every chapter of the Gospels probably contains an instance of this inaccuracy, which occasionally misleads. The use of "is dead" for "died" is allowable in Matt. ix, 24, and parallel passages, but in 2 Cor. v, 14, "then were all dead" leads to a misunderstanding of the passage; "then [or therefore] all died" is correct. In Rom. v, 12, "all have sinned," "have" is unnecessary and misleading. There is little need of citing other instances, for there is general agreement as to the correct English equivalent of the aorist.

2. In regard to the Greek imperfect, while its force is recognized by all scholars, there is great difficulty in determining when we ought to try and retain that force in English. We can say "he did this" or "he was doing this"—the former equivalent to the Greek aorist, and the latter to the Greek imperfect. Yet

the latter form is cumbrous, and if used constantly would seriously injure the style. Furthermore, even this form often fails to express the exact meaning of the Greek imperfect. In Luke v, 3, "was teaching" is more accurate than "taught," but it is not necessary to insist upon the change. In verse 7, however, "their net brake" is incorrect; the imperfect here means "began to break," though "their nets were breaking" is, perhaps, the best emendation. In verse 7, "began to sink" is the correct translation of a present infinitive, which has, in a subordinate clause, the general force of the imperfect. So in Matt. ii, 22, "was reigning" is the correct rendering of the present, according to the Greek conception of dependent tenses. In Matt. iii, 5, 6, the continued action is expressed by imperfects, but there seems no necessity for altering the English tenses, which here logically suggest this. In one class of passages the distinction between the aorist and imperfect is of importance, and yet can scarcely be reproduced. In the six accounts of the miracles of the feeding of the multitudes, the breaking of the bread is expressed by an aorist; but in four of the passages (Matt. xv, 36, correct reading Mark vi, 41, viii, 6; Luke ix, 16) the giving of it to the disciples is described by an imperfect, thus hinting that the Lord kept giving the broken bread as it multiplied in his hands. In these cases it would sound harsh to say either "kept giving" or "was giving." In Gal. i, 13, 23, 24, imperfects occur which occasion similar difficulty. Probably in more than half the cases the distinction cannot be recognized in a smooth translation.

3. The Greek perfect is properly a combination of the aorist and present, expressing past action with present

result. Hence, we must decide which element is predominant, and translate accordingly. In the common phrase, “as it is written," the perfect is used, and properly rendered by a present; but in Gal. ii, 20, "I am crucified with Christ," ought to be changed to "have been crucified," since the emphasis rests on the past rather than the present, both of them being included.

4. Passing to the non-indicative moods, we find that our forms do not, as a rule, express the distinctions of the Greek. The present and aorist subjunctive express respectively continued and momentary action, contingent on the leading clause, while our potential mood is not a subjunctive strictly, and by its tenses seeks to express past, present, and future time.

The imperatives are distinguished in the same way, but we must translate them all alike, leaving to the reader to determine whether the action commanded is once for all or continued. In Matt. v, 12, vi, 1, we have present imperatives, but in v, 16, 17, vi, 2, 3, we have the aorist. Further, the imperative in form is like the indicative, and it is difficult to decide which is meant. For example, John vi, 39, may mean "ye search the Scriptures" or "search the Scriptures," the context pointing to the former sense. In John xiv, 1, Matt. v, 48, and other passages, the same question arises. The infinitives present similar phenomena, but here there is opportunity for more exactness. The translation of the participles calls for great care. The present denotes continuous action, as a rule, and may be fairly rendered in English; but the combinations are such as to require skilful handling. The aorist participle has so often been incorrectly rendered by an English past participle, that this, and the corre

sponding misapprehension of the indicative, may be termed the chief blemishes of the Authorized Version as respects the verb. The cases where an emendation, either by the use of the present participle or by a change to the indicative structure, would be desirable, may be numbered by hundreds. The perfect participle is frequently used in the Greek Testament, but its sense cannot be exactly expressed in English except by a paraphrase, as in the case of the indicative.

5. The difference between "be" and "become" is expressed in Greek by two verbs, which are usually indiscriminately rendered "be" in the Authorized Version. In Matt. v, 45, we should read "that ye may become," etc. Similar cases to the number of sixty or seventy occur.

6. The middle voice in Greek has no equivalent in English. It is reflexive, and may sometimes be expressed by adding the pronouns himself, themselves, etc.; but no rule can be laid down.

It will appear from these remarks how numerous are the questions which come before the Revisers, how difficult many of them are from their minuteness. The effort has been to present to the New Testament Company every question however minute, and to discuss at least the possibility of expressing in English the shades of meaning recognized in the Greek. In one chapter of the Gospels, containing twenty-three verses, eleven emendations can be made involving the moods and tenses, probably half that number must be passed by. It may be estimated that greater accuracy can be secured in the vast majority of cases where the Authorized Version is faulty in its treatment of the Greek verb.

UNWARRANTED VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS IN THE ENGLISH VERSION.

BY PROF. J. HENRY THAYER, D.D.,

Andover Theological Seminary.

King James's translators, towards the close of their address "To the Reader," remark: "We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words. . . . That we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent . . . thus to mince the matter we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom . . ."

This decision to disregard verbal identity, provided the sense did not suffer, was a grave error. By translating the same word in the original by different English words, distinctions are inevitably suggested where they do not exist; on the other hand, by rendering different words in the original in one and the same way, differences in the sacred writers' thought are hidden from the modern reader. No sensible man, it is true, would think of making one word in English uniformly answer for each particular Greek or Hebrew term; nevertheless, in translating such a book as the Bible, the one supreme religious authority recognized by all Protestant Christians-in which, moreover, the change of a word may involve the change of a doctrine-the greatest pains should be taken neither to confound things which differ, nor to create differences where they do not exist.

Not that, with all our pains, it is possible always to