The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-11-23
Omr Contributors.
The Revised Version of the
New Testament.
BY REV. h c. ALEXANDER, D. D.
No. II.

a single paragraph in DR.. Roberts little
volume beginning on page 99) where at
tention is called to the occasional mis-
takes of the Authorized Version in trans
lating the middle or passive voice as if it
were the active. Thus at T Phil hill. ii Is,
it is urged, we should read among whom
ye are seen, instead of among whom We
SHINE; and at 2 Cor. verse TO- 1--WE must
all be made manifest, instead of eve
must all appear" This last is undoubt-
eddy one of those instances where the
more familiar term must be sacrificed to
grammatical accuracy and to the demands
OF a richer and Gner exegesis.
The next topic is that of the Greek
lenses, and the mistakes of the Author
ized Version in rendering them. The
observations of DR.. Roberts on this head
are especially excellent though some of
them, of course, had previously been
made by Trench and Eadie, as we'll as by
Bishop Lightfoot, Bishop Ellicott, Pro
lessor Nicholson, and many others. Here,
as IN their treatment of the article, the
scholars of King James's era were led
astray by greater familiarity with the
Latin than with the Greek language.
The English has definite and also an
indefinite article. The Greek has a de-
finite but not an indefinite article. The
Latin, on the other hand, has no article
at all, whether definite or indefinite So
too the elaborate tense-system of the
Greek language is something to which
the Latin is stranger. "In particular"
as DIR. Roberts admirably says, the Latin
has no means of distinguishing between
momentary and, he might have added,
single or ob8olute] past action for ever
finished and continuous past action Just
completed, but which may still be car
rled on" The Latin perfect is conse-
quently made to do double duty. Hence
1t was but natural that men better ac-
quainted with Latin than with Greek
should fail to discriminate sufficiently be-
tween the Greek Perfect and the Greek
Aorist. They are interchanged very
much at random in the translation" Ex-
amples are numerous and at hand. Matt.
ii: 2, should read, "saying where is he
that is born king Of the Jews? for a0e SaqO
his star in the east, and are come to wor-
ship him, instead of, "for eoe haze seen
his star, etc. Here an Aorist is rem
dered as if it were Perfect. The con-
verse statement is true of Luke xiii 9.
where Perfect is rendered as if it were
an Aorist. The Authorized Version reads
as follows: Suppose ye that these
Gallleans were sinners above all the Gal
1leans, because they suffered such things?"
Here for they suffered" we ought to sub
stitute "they hare suffered" And yet the
Correct rendering is sometimes matter
for debate; and is often an affair of taste,
or, if of scholarship, is often question in
English rather than in Greek. The prin-
ciple which should regulate this deter
mination is clearly the one laid down by
DR.. Roberts in the Companion, viz: that
" the Greek lenses should always be rem
dered with strict grammatical precision
in English, whenever the genius of our
language will admit of it. But there are,
undoubtedly, many occasions on which
English idiom will not tolerate strict
rendering Of the Aorist In the judg-
ment Of your present critic, if the veneer
able translators Of 1911 had adhered te
naciously, and with intelligent exactness,
to the first of these statements they would
in large measure have avoided class of
inaccuracies which perhaps more than any
other have rendered revision Of their
labors necessary and if the revisers Of
1881 had paid equal attention to the
second of these statements, their work
would be much more apt to be accepted,
and to stand the test Of time, than now
appears likely.
Well would it have been for the men
Of the Canterbury Convocation had they
given due heed to words like these Of
DR.. Roberts Instead Of the bare and
hard past tense, a Perfect and even Plu-
perfect rendering brings out the meaning
often better in our language" Evident