The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-11-02
Omr Contributor
The Revised Version of the
New Testament.
BY REV. q. C. ALEXANDER, D. D.


overdone the matter in relation to the
presence or absence of the article. Aside
from those instances in which they have
merely strained the English dion in
order to effect sort of mechanical cor
respondence in this respect, and which
belong to another branch of the subject,
there are instances in which the insertion
of the article in English simply because
the article is inserted in Greek affects the
sense, inconsiderably it may be but still
injuriously. A possible instance of this
sort is found at 2 Thessalonians iii: 8,
and in several parallel places (notably in
the Lords prayer, which read the evil
LoheI' instead of evil" The Greek in
all these places is ambiguous and the re-
vision is not improbably quite right. In
the preceding paper similar ambiguity
was pointed out at Tim. vi: 10, where
the Authorized Version and. the revision
have both omitted the article, but where
the context might seem to favor the more
literal rendering. Clear instances of the
mistaken insertion of the English article
might, it is likely be discovered in the
new Version and instances where the
sense of the original has been in some de-
gree famed, if not departed from. There
are passages, too, in which the Greek
article has been represented by the pos
sessive pronoun, where the Authorized
Version had left the Greek form without
English equivalent and with sound gram
NAUTICAL justification for doing so. In
every such case the translation is very
much an affair of taste and diversified
exegesis. An instance of this sort is
Eph. i 7, where instead of the abstract
redemption" the .revisers read oar re-
demption." The rule about abstract
nouns in the Greek New Testament is
that they do not require the article, but
do admit of it where the abstract idea is
to be brought out strongly. Per contra,
the Revisers agree with the Authorized
Version In neglecting the Greek articles
IN translation at Rom. vi: 4, where the
literal rendering would be, 1--WE were
buried therefore with him through the
baptism into the DEATH" Are not these
both possessive articles, and ought not
the English to have been, awe were
buried therefore with him through our
baptism into his death" The revision
also errs, your critic would modestly sub
NIT, by inserting the indefinite article
where there is no article in the Greek
and where the sense (aside from the
idiom) recommends, or even demands,
that there should be no article in the
English. There are few points more diff
fcult to handle with perfect accuracy in
Greek than the anarthrous noun, as it
appears in the classics and in the New
Testament. The grammarians are di-
vlded into different schools in reference
to this matter, and indeed in reference
to the whole treatment of the article.
The three highest names in Germany on
the Greek Of the New Testament are
Winer, Meyer, and Alexander Buttmann.
and all these great grammarians and
critics agree in entertaining views on this
subject which are to all appearance not
always in concert with those of the Lon
don scholars. Meyer, in particular, has
been especially successful in stating and
maintaining the position that the article
is often left out in Greek in order to con-
vey the idea of category or quality.
Where this is the fact the indefinite
article in English is inadmissible. The
failureto insert any article in such cir
cumstances is perfectly congenial to the
idiom of both languages. 1t would spoil
the phrase IMAM wants but little here
below to put it "a man wants but lit
tie" etc. The French have even finer
delicacies Of expression that are con-
nected with the presence or absence of
the articles. To say that any body does
something en- honsnae, is not to say that
he does it as the man, or even, precisely,
as q man, but in his character as man
rather than in his character as vertebrate
mammal; or Ito be more accurate) it is
to say that he does it in the character