The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-04-19
in reference to the same event.

III I, one anu Iue same Greeh TERM is
unnecessarily rendered "defle" in one
clause, and destroy" in another clause,
of one and the same verse. The idea
seems to be that if anybody injuriously,
and even ruinously, defaces Gods tenn
pie, God shall injuriously, and ruinously,
deface him. At Rev. iv: 4, the word
which in the singular is translated
throne" in the plural is rendered
"seats" much to the detriment both of
the thought and the expression. So at
Rev. ii: Is, and xvi 10, where the word
is singular in both places, it should be
"Satans throne" and the throne of the
beast"
The Broad Church doctrine as to future
suffering receives heavy blow in the
new version where it renders celebrated
adjective eternal" in both clauses, in
stead of eternal" in the second clause
only and everlasting" in the first. The
Authorized Version needlessly represents
the same Greek word by so great va
riety of English ones in the same chapter
Rom. w. as count, reckon" and
"impute." la the seventh chapter of
Romans we should either read "covet, +"
or else read "have concupiscence, in
both places: "covet" suits the sense best
in one of the places, and "have concupi-
scence" suits best in the other. The no
ton is, that the language and operation
of the 10th commandment evinced to
Paul's satisfaction the penetrating spirit
uality of the whole Decalogue.
What Professor Roberts happily styles
key-aOords," are often not recognized as
such in the older version. Second Cor
inthians has many of these key-words.
For example comfort and "afiiction"
are carefully and regularly set over
against one another; and this fact should
not be obscured by substituting for af-
Fiction tribulation, and for " comfort"
consolation"
So with the word "veil, - and its ETY.
biological cognates, in the third chapter.
We should read with uncovered or
unveiled" face, instead of with open
face" and eff our gospel is yelled" or
covered" instead of I" if our gospel be
hid" There are several other instances
of the sort in the epistles.
In quotations from the Old Testament
these unsupported variations in the mean
ing given to a recurring word in the orig
inal are very disturbing. Genesis XIV: 6,
is four times quoted by Paul in the very
same way, and yet the translation is
never exactly the same. "Was counted
was reckoned' was imputed" "was
accounted" Ito him for righteousness are
the varied forms of the English. Deut.
xxi: IS, is twice quoted (Rom xii 10;
Heb. K 30,) in the very same words I;
but the Authorized Version (besides other
and lighter change) renders particular
recurring term, repay" in one epistle-
and "recompense" in the other 1t has
often been noticed that the expression
" if they shall enter into my rest" should
appear three times Gnstead of two) in
Heb. iii and iv. The true idiomatic Eng
fish equivalent for this phrase appears
but once in these three passages, they
shall not enter into my rest"
Parallel passages are made to differ in
English when in Greek they agree. Ex-
amples in point may be found by COM
pairing Matt. iv 6 with Luke iv: 10;
Matt. iv: 10 with Mark i II; Matt. K
IA with Luke tx: 5; Matt. K: "a with
Mark xiii 10; Matt XII: 10 with Luke
vii: 81; Matt. xvii :: 10 with Mark tx
%; Matt. xix with Mark K: 4 Matt.
XVI: Al with Mark xiv: So. We find
examples of similar popularity to a GER
tain extent in the epistles. Ephesians
and Colossians are even more alike YER
bally than the English reader would be
apt to suppose. So are 2 Peter and Jude
A considerable number of particular in
stances Of this kind might easily be cited.
Individual traits of the several writers
ought to be preserved so far as possible.
The attempt has been made to do this by
the revisers, but has often been wholly
neglected by the translators of the 18th
century. This is especially true of the