Page liii

1 Sam. ii. 13; 1 Chr. vii. 2, 40. Since there exists no doubt that this s represents the Anglo-Saxon possessive ending -es (-is more often in Old English) it is manifest that the possessive his standing after the possessing noun is a mere error. We have accordingly adopted the changes of 1762, “Asa’s heart” 1 Kin. xv. 14 for “Asa his heart” (Bishops’); “Mordecai’s matters” Esther iii. 4 for “Mordecai his matters”; elsewhere retaining the original form in 1 Esdr. ii. 30; iii. 7, 8; Judith xiii. 9; xv. 11; 2 Macc. i. 33 marg.; iv. 38; xii. 22 (Bishops’), all in the debased style of the Apocrypha (see Sect. VII. p. lxv.). The antiquated singular for plural with the word “year” has been kept in 2 Kin. xxiii. 36; Jer. lii. 1; Dan. v. 31; Amos i. 1; 1 Esdr. i. 39; 1 Macc. ix. 57; 2 Macc. iv. 23; Rom. iv. 19 (see App. C in locis citatis). In like manner we have “two mile” John xi. 18 marg. (App. C): “three pound” 1 Kin. x. 17; Ezra ii. 69; Neh. vii. 71, 72; 1 Macc. xiv. 24; xv. 18; John xix. 39: “thirty change” Judg. xiv. 12, 13: “thirty foot” Ezek. xli. 6 marg.: so “an eight days” Luke ix. 28: these last have never been altered. The use of the cardinal for the ordinal number we have suppressed only four times, the earliest being Gen. viii. 13, on which passage in Appendix A, note 2, the case is stated. Nor have we meddled with a few manifest inaccuracies of other kinds, most of which the hands even of Dr Blayney have spared. Such are the pronouns pleonastic in “which pains…they slack not” 2 Esdr. xvi. 38; “Onias…he went” 2 Macc. iv. 4, 51: the double negatives in “shall not leave…neither name nor…2 Sam. xiv. 7; “Give none offence, neither…nor…nor” 1 Cor. x. 32. The objective in the place of the nominative in “him that soweth” Prov. vi. 19 was corrected in 1769; it is less clear that “whom” is wrong in Matt. xvi. 13, 15; Acts xiii. 25. The use of the adjective for the adverb is not unfrequent in the Authorized Version (Eph. iv. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 6), and has not been disturbed even in so extreme a case as “wonderful great” 2 Chr. ii. 9. Double superlatives, “most straitest” Acts xxvi. 5; “chiefest” Mark x. 44, and the places cited in the margin there, have ceased to displease by reason of their very familiarity. Verbs transitive and intransitive are sometimes confounded; e.g. “lying in wait” Acts xx. 19 compared with “laying await” Acts ix. 24; “to be heat” Dan. iii. 19; “shall ripe” 2 Esdr. xvi. 26; “will fat” Ecclus. xxvi. 13 (see Appendix C, p. xcv., for the last three); “can white” Mark ix. 3; compare “did fear” Wisd. xvii. 9. The following errors have not been touched, the first three being imported from the Bishops’ version, “that we should live still in wickedness and to suffer, and not to know wherefore” 2 Esdr. iv. 12; “if any man knew where he were” John xi. 57; “or ever he come near” Acts xxiii. 15; “if we know that he hear us” 1 John v. 15 (Bishops’, after Tyndale). The next instance seems to have been influenced by the Greek (like Acts vii. 39), “she took it, and laid it on her mule; and made ready her carts, and laid them (αὐτὰ) thereon” Judith xv. 11.

A few miscellaneous observations may close this branch of the subject.

The more English prefix un- in the place of im- or in- has been restored in all eleven passages where it was given in 1611; even modern Bibles keep unperfect, Ps. cxxxix. 16. This form chiefly comes from the Bishops’ version; except those cases cited on Matt. xvii. 20 in Appendix C, it is found only in Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. To set s after the Hebrew termination -im (Gen. iii. 24; Ex. xxv. 18; xxvi. 1, &c.) is a manifest inaccuracy, and if the American rule (Report, &c. p. 22) had been adopted of rejecting the s throughout, no valid objection could have been raised. The middle course taken in recent English editions, that of sometimes making the required change and sometimes not, admits of no reasonable defence. We have simply abided by the standard of 1611 in every instance, not caring to adopt even such changes as that set down in Appendix C on Gen. xxvi. 1. In regard to the interjection O or Oh, the American plan (ubi supra) looks tempting from its simplicity, since it limits O to the pure vocative, and employs Oh for the optative, which practically introduces the latter into the great majority of places. But Oh in English is neither dignified nor pleasing enough for constant repetition, and after a fruitless attempt to discover the law observed by our Translators, it has been judged advisable to limit Oh to passages