of the passage to read, Paul was engrossed or wholly occupied with the word, than, as in the Authorized Version, he was pressed in the spirit. Again, in Acts xxiii. 9, does not the verse gain a new force, if the scribes on the Pharisees' side are represented as saying, We find no evil in this man; and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel! instead of, as in the Authorized Version, But if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. In 1 Cor. vi. 20, the exhortation is more completely connected with the subject under discussion, and therefore is more impressive, if the words of the Authorized Version, and in your spirit, which are God's, are omitted. The Apostle has been speaking exclusively of the body, and the best text makes him limit his exhortation to his converts accordingly, and call upon them to glorify God in their bodies. The somewhat obscure passage, 2 Cor. i. 20, is made clearer if we read, as we are authorized to do by the evidence in the case, For how many soever are the promises of God, in him (Christ) is the yea, (i. e., the confirmation of them ;) wherefore also through him is the Amen, (i. e., the assent of the church,) unto the glory of God through us. Gal. v. 1, is more felicitously expressed by the modern text; For freedom did Christ free us: stand fast therefore, than in the Authorized Version, stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free. In Heb. xii. 7, though some writers have held that the reading of the Authorized Version alone is intelligible, the careful reader will approve of the text as supported by the best authorities, It is for chastisement that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons, i. e., when you are called upon to endure sufferings patiently, it is as a parental discipline, and this discipline is

the end which God has in view. And even in Rev. xxii. 14, where the strongest evidence is for the reading, Blessed are they that wash their robes, as against the Authorized Version, that do his commandments, it may fairly be questioned whether it does not present us with a finer and more natural thought, as it shows the author, at the close of his words respecting righteousness, turning back to the source of all true holy life, the blood of Jesus Christ. Other examples might be cited, which would be illustrative of the same point, but the limits of the present article will not allow their introduction, and those which have been adduced will be sufficient to establish what has been said.

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 had 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.

Happily these

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. 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, with

out 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