Ronald A. Knox - On Englishing The Bible-Burns, Oates (1949)

5 •-7
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/onenglishingbiblOOOOknox
f
ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
RONALD A. KNOX
ON
ENGLISHING
THE BIBLE
LONDON
BURNS OATES
i 949
&^5S- K6
REVERENDO PATRI RONALDO COX
AMICUS TOTIUS ORBIS SPATIO DIVISUS
SED NOMINE SED STUDIO
MIRUM QUAM VICINUS
NIHIL OBSTAT: EDVARDVS CAN. MAHONEY, S.T.D.
CENSOR DEPVTATVS
imprimatvr: e. morrogh Bernard
VICARIVS GENERA LIS
WESTMONASTERII: DIE XXVI FEBRVARII MCMXLIX
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HUNT, BARNARD AND CO., LTD.
FOR BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD.
2 8 ASHLEY PLACE, LONDON, S.W. I
First published 1949

PREFACE
‘Wragg is in custody.’ So ended a newspaper paragraph,
in the sixties of last century, about a case of child-murder

at Nottingham; and it was not difficult for Matthew
Arnold to arraign the industrialized society which turned
the wretched heroine of such a tragedy into a bare sur¬
name. You may achieve this effect of mononymity with¬
out getting into trouble with the police; you can
translate the Bible. The thing, I confess, took me by
surprise. All my life I had been indifferent to the use of
titles; complete strangers referred to me, sometimes in
my hearing, as ‘Ronnie Knox’—if anything, it was the
surname that was regarded as optional. Then I published
a translation of the New Testament, and all at once I
found I had gone back to my school-days; I was simply
‘Knox’. Moffatt said this, Knox said that; 1 had become
one of these translator-fellows.
Let not this depersonalization be confused with fame.
Not fame overtakes a Bradshaw, a Whittaker, a Baedeker;
the man has turned into a book, has lost (like Wragg) the
semblance of humanity; all may speak their minds freely
of him, without fear of libel, thenceforward. The odd
thing is, a corresponding fixation takes place in the author
himself. You may say what you like about him; you may
not criticize the book with which his name is identified,
on pain of an angry rejoinder. I have long since given up
protesting when controversialists misquote me, or news¬
paper columnists credit me with the authorship of
Limericks that are none of mine. But if you question a
rendering of mine in the New Testament, you come up
V
85516
VI PREFACE
against a parental instinct hardly less ferocious than that

of the mother-bear. I shall smile it off, no doubt, in con¬
versation, but you have lost marks.
And yet, heaven knows, I ought by now to be accus¬
tomed to it. All the time I was translating the New
Testament, my work was being revised by a committee of
experts, briefed by myself to pick holes in it. Then I
brought out a trial edition, imploring the general public
to contribute its remarks, which meant new corrections
here, there and everywhere. For some reason, when the
authorized edition was at last produced, I fell to imagining
that the voice of criticism would be silent; as if you could
ever achieve the perfect compromise, or satisfy the
beasts of Ephesus by throwing sops to them! Of course
some people will hate what I have written; why shouldn’t
they? All the same, I get much more angry with the
people who like me and don’t like my Bible, than with
the people who like my Bible and don’t like me.
It is a humiliating reflection, that a careful perusal of
the holy Scriptures should engender (or perhaps reveal)
in one’s character this unreasonable streak of touchiness.
I can only comfort myself with the thought that, among
all the canonized Saints, none has been more frequently
accused of touchiness than St. Jerome. Be the reason
what it may, I have not always maintained that silence
which becomes an author in face of his critics. I would
turn round and hit back, generally in the pages of the
Clergy Review, that admirable safety-valve by which a
sorely harassed profession throws off its ill humours. At
least I would make it clear to the public what I was trying
to do; at least they should know what it was all about. Let
them tell me that I had succeeded in ruining the Bible,
not that I had failed in the attempt to make a pretty-
pretty job of it.
PREFACE Vll
But a further explanation is needed. I may be told that

it was all very well to throw off an article, now and
again, about Bible translation; by-products of the pro¬
cess, sparks from my anvil; but why republish them? It is
an obvious criticism, but one which finds me still im¬
penitent. I am inclined to think that a book of this sort
has more permanent value than any translation I have
done, or could do. The work of translating the Bible,
really translating it, is being taken in hand in our day for
the first time since Coverdale. Moffatt and Goodspeed
began it, with their fearless challenge of the Authorized
Version; their work has been followed up by a text issued
with official sanction in the United States. Quite recently,
the proposal for a new rendering has been gaining ground
among non-Catholics in our own country. Meanwhile,
the Catholic hierarchy in the States has entrusted a large
body of Biblical scholars with a similar commission. They
began with caution; their New Testament was merely a
revision, with certain verbal alterations, of the Douay.
The Old Testament, to judge by the single volume of it
which has so far appeared, is on a far more ambitious
scale. They seem resolved, if I may put it in that way, to
out-Knox Knox in baldness of narrative and modernity of
diction. The germ is spreading, and there will be more
translations yet. Indeed, it is doubtful whether we shall
ever again allow ourselves to fall under the spell of a
single, uniform text, consecrated by its antiquity. And as
each new adventurer sets out on his quest for that North-
West Passage, the perfect rendering of Holy Writ, he
will do well to take note of buoys that mark the channel.
Let him ask, not how I did the thing, but how I thought
the thing ought to be done. Often he will disagree, but
his own ideas will be clarified, none the less, by the
effort of disagreement.
CONTENTS
I Thoughts on Bible Translation i
II Some New Testament Problems 19
III Justice and Scandal in the Gospels 29
IV Challoner and the Douay Version 41
V Some Reasons Why 49
VI Nine Years’ Hard 66
VII Morsu Amarissimo 73
VIII Farewell to Machabees 84

I
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE
TRANSLATION1
Almost for the first time in my life, I am reading a paper

before a learned audience con amore. As a rule, I find the
process involves talking about something in which you
are not interested, talking about something of which you
have no knowledge, or talking about something about
which there is very little to say—sometimes all three.
Now, all I have got to do is to ventilate the ideas which
have been simmering in my brain continuously these last
three years; the ideas which, unless I am carefully con¬
trolled, I pour out freely in conversation. There is a
great deal to be said about translating the Bible; most of
that I claim to know, even if I know nothing else, and I
am furiously interested in it.
Let us be precise; when I talk about translating the
Bible, I mean translating the Vulgate. I have every respect
for the patient scholarship which is giving us the West¬
minster Version, and I have sometimes found myself
envying its compilers their liberty. But, it is well known,
for all official purposes a Bible translation must take the
Vulgate as its standard. I have been translating, these last
three years, from the Vulgate text, relegating other read¬
ings, however plausible, to the foot of the page. I have
even denied myself the privilege claimed by the latest
American revisers, of going back behind the Clementine
edition, and taking the Vulgate as it stands (say) in
Wordsworth and White’s collation of it. The American
XA paper read to the Catholic Conference of Higher Studies.
i
2 ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
version, for example, in Acts xvii. 6, has ‘these men who

are setting the world in an uproar’. That is quite cer¬
tainly the true reading; but a bad copyist has written
urbem instead of orbem, and the Clementine follows this
tradition. So I have rendered, ‘who turn the state upside
down’; that is how the thing stands in every Vulgate in
the world nowadays, and it is no part of the translator’s
business to alter, on however good grounds, his original.
That is not to say, that when you are translating a
translation you must never look back at the original docu¬
ment. There will be passages in which the Latin is patient
of two different interpretations; and here the original
will put you right. This is especially true in the Vulgate
psalms; only the original to which you must refer is not
the Hebrew but the Septuagint, which they follow almost
slavishly. Again, there will be passages in which the Latin
translators have thrown up the sponge, and simply given
you a meaningless transliteration of the Greek; in Acts
xvii. 18, for example, the word spermologos is translated
seminiverbius. You cannot translate seminiverbius; it is a vox
nihili. If the Vulgate had meant ‘one who sows words’,
it would have given us sator verborum. In such a case, I
hold, the English translator is justified in going back to
the Greek, and giving the most accurate rendering of it
that he can find. Much oftener, the Latin gives you a
weak equivalent for a colourful word in the original;
thus, in the first passage I have alluded to, concito, to stir
up, is a very weak rendering of anastatoo, to turn a thing
upside down. Here (though with less confidence) I claim
the right to go back to the original, and render, ‘turn the
state upside down’, because concito does not contradict
that notion, and is not meant to contradict it; it simply
falls short of it.
The only considerable liberty I have allowed myself of
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATION
3
going back behind the Latin—and I have only done so

tentatively is to restore, here and there, more plausible
tenses to the verbs when the Latin comes, directly or in¬
directly, from the Hebrew. In the psalms, particularly, *
I do not see how you are to make any consecutive sense
of passages here and there unless you give a present where
the Latin has a perfect, and sometimes where the Latin
has a future. King David had, after all, only two tenses to
express himself in; and by the time the Septuagint has
translated his imperfect (or was it a future?) into an
aorist which may or may not be gnomic, and the Vulgate
has translated the aorist into a perfect which may or may
not be the perfect with have’, a rich confusion has been
introduced into the time-sequence which impels the
translator to put the verb in the present and call it a day.
\ou must, after all, translate with some reference to the
context.
That, then, is what we have to translate—the Clemen¬
tine recension of the Vulgate. And now, how are we to
translate it?
Two alternatives present themselves at once, the literal
and the literary method of translation. Is it to be ‘Arms
and the man I sing’, or is it to be something which will
pass for English? If you are translating for the benefit of a
person who wants to learn Latin by following the gospel
in a Latin missal when it is read out in church, then your
‘Arms and the man I sing’ is exactly what he wants. If you
are translating for the benefit of a person who wants to be
able to read the word of God for ten minutes on end
without laying it aside in sheer boredom or bewilder¬
ment, a literary translation is what you want—and we
have been lacking it for centuries.
Among the many good things Mr. Belloc has done
1This was written before the appearance of the new Latin psalter.
which are almost entirely unknown, is a little brochure

of 44 pages, the substance of a lecture he once gave at the
Taylorian, on ‘Translation’. The great principle he there
lays down is that the business of a translator is not to ask,
‘How shall I make this foreigner talk English?’ but ‘What
would an Englishman have said to express this?’ For in¬
stance, he says, if you are faced with the French sentence,
‘II y avait dans cet homme je ne sais quoi de suffisance’,
you do not want to write, ‘There was in this man I know
not what of self-sufficiency’; you want to write, ‘There
was a touch of complacency about him’. So with ‘Arms
and the man’. You have not translated the phrase when
you have merely corrected the preposterous order, and
written, ‘I sing of arms and the man’. ‘Sing’ is only used
like that by English poets when they are imitating Virgil,
and you must not translate Virgil by imitating Virgil. The
opening is also too abrupt; there is not time to give the
words ‘I sing’ a proper emphasis. You want something
like, ‘My song tells of arms ; tells of the man’, and so on.
Anybody who has really tackled the business of transla¬
tion, at least where the classical languages are concerned,
will tell you that the bother is not finding the equivalent
for this or that word, it is finding out how to turn the
sentence. And about this, the older translators of the
Bible took no trouble at all. Take this sentence: ‘The
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands
oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders’. No, do
not exclaim against the cumbrousness of Douay; that
comes from the Authorized Version. The Authorized
Version is supposed to be the fountain of pure English;
but there it gives you an English sentence which would
get any man the sack, and rightly, from Fleet Street. ‘For
the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, holding to the
tradition of their ancestors, never eat without washing
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATION $
their hands again and again’—there is the English of

it.
Incidentally, let us never be taken in by the people who
talk to us about the ‘effective inversions of order’ which
bring out the emphasis so well in the Bible. There are,
indeed, such things as effective inversions of order. But
what they mean is a sentence like, ‘If I by the finger of
God cast out devils’. Here, the operative words, ‘by the
finger of God’, have been taken away from the end of the
sentence, where the emphasis would have fallen on them,
and shipped round to the front, leaving the whole em¬
phasis of the sentence wrong; ‘If I by the finger of God
cast out Devils , as if somebody had been accusing our
Lord of casting out angels. There, of course, the Author¬
ized Version knew better; it was Douay, feverishly keep¬
ing the order of the Latin, that gave us the piece of false
rhetoric to which our ears, by annual repetition, have
grown accustomed.
I say, then, that the first thing demanded of a new
translation of the Vulgate is that it should break away
from the literal translation of sentences. What could be
flatter than the first verse of St. John, as usually trans¬
lated, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God’ ? That represents
a very subtle chiasmus in the Greek, closely followed by
the Latin; ‘Et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat
Verbum’. To restore that chiasmus, you must have some¬
thing like ‘God had the Word abiding with him, and the
Word was God’. Latin and Greek leave the end of the
sentence unemphatic, English emphasizes the end of the
sentence. Therefore the English for ‘De tribu Juda duo-
decim millia signati’ is not what we are accustomed to.
It is, ‘Twelve thousand were sealed of the tribe of Juda’.
You must play cat’s cradle with almost every sentence in
the New Testament, if you want to decide how an English¬

man would hare said the same thing.
So much for sentences; and now, what of phrases ? It
stands to reason that no two languages have exactly the
same idiom; that the English for ‘ Comment vous portez-
vous?’ is not ‘How do you carry yourself?’ If anybody
has come across that extremely rare book, ‘English as she
is Spoke’, he will know what I mean. The book was a
phrase-book compiled by a Portuguese author for the
benefit of English travellers in Portugal. And you do not
need much critical insight to detect the fact that this well-
meaning gentleman knew no English at all. He knew
French; so he translated his sentences into French and
then did them into English with a dictionary. Conse¬
quently, when he wanted to render a Portuguese idiom
which meant, ‘to wait about, to kick one’s heels’, he
could do all right for the first part of his process; he
knew that the corresponding idiom in French was ‘cro-
quer le marmot’—I have no notion why. The English,
therefore, for kicking one’s heels was ‘to crunch the
marmoset’. It is an extremely entertaining book; but, if
you come to think of it, practically every translation of
the Bible you have ever read makes errors which are
quite as ludicrous—only we are accustomed to them.
Douay was consistent; it translated the Latin word for
word, and if you protested that its version sounded rather
odd, replied woodenly, ‘Well, that’s what it says’. In the
eleventh psalm, for instance, you get the words ‘Deceitful
lips, they have spoken in heart and heart’. Even Challoner
saw that that would not do, so he pillaged from the Author¬
ized Version and gave us ‘With a double heart have they
spoken’. I don’t see what a double heart could be except
an abnormal anatomical condition, or an obscure kind of
convention at bridge; but anyhow it sounds a little more
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATION 7
like English. But when the Latin had ‘Renew a right spirit
within my bowels’, that was what Challoner put; and
when the Latin had ‘Examine, O Lord, my kidneys’,
Challoner put that down too ; only he changed kidneys to
the obsolete word ‘reins’, hoping that his readers would
not look it up in the dictionary. We are sensible of these
Hebraisms, and most of us would like to see the last of
them. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other
Hebraisms which we do not notice, because we have
allowed ourselves to grow accustomed to them. We
should have thought it odd if we had read in The Times,
‘General Montgomery’s right hand has smitten Rommel
in the hinder parts’; but if we get that sort of thing in the
Bible we take it, unlike Rommel, sitting down. ‘Mr.
Churchill then opened his mouth and spoke’—is that
English? No, it is Hebrew idiom clothed in English
words.
Constantly, then, you have to be on the look-out for
phrases which, because you have so often met them in the
Bible, read like English, and yet are not English. Many of
them, beginning life as Bible English, have even crept into
the language; ‘to give a person the right hand of fellow¬
ship’, for example, or ‘to sleep with one’s fathers’, or
‘the son of perdition’; if the translator is not careful, he
will let these through the barrier by mistake, and he will
be wrong. When a public speaker urges that we should
give Chiang Kai-shek the right hand of fellowship, he
means ‘give him the right hand of fellowship, as the dear
old Bible would say’. And when you are translating the
Bible, you must not describe the apostles as ‘giving Paul
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as the dear old
Bible would say’. Some of the phrases which we take
over, as unconscious quotations, from the Authorized
Version, or more rarely from Douay, have even become
B
jocose. It is intolerable, in a modem translation of the

New Testament, to find St. Paul talking about ‘the inner
man’, when ‘the inner man’ has been used for so many
years as a facetious synonym for the human stomach. If
you are simply revising the old text of the Douay, you
may, perhaps, be justified in leaving such phrases as they
stand. But if you are writing a translation of the Bible, a
translation of your own, you must find some other way of
putting it; ‘the inner man’ is a phrase that has become
desecrated.
Apropos of that, may I suggest some considerations
about what are called ‘consecrated phrases’ in the Bible,
which, we are told, we must not alter in any way,
because they have become so familiar ? I quite admit that
where a form of words has become stereotyped through
passing into liturgical use, it is a pity and probably a
waste of time to try and alter it. The words of the Our
Father and of the Hail Mary have got to remain as they are.
Again, there are certain formulas which are best left
alone, or altered as little as possible, because alteration
cannot hope to make them clearer, and they have already
a supreme literary value of their own, depending on asso¬
ciation; the words of Consecration, for example, or the
seven words from the Cross. But it is, I submit, a grave
error to stick to a form of words, in itself unnatural
English, merely because a thousand repetitions have
familiarized the public ear with the sound of it. Just
because we are familiar with a form of words, we fail to
be struck by its full meaning. For instance, I had a very
interesting ietter from an Irish Redemptorist, expressing
the hope that I had found some better translation for
arneito heauton (abneget semetipsum) than ‘Let him deny
himself’. This has become a consecrated phrase, and for
years, now, nuns have been encouraging schoolgirls to
give up toffee during Lent and write the fact down on a

card as a record of ‘self-denial’. For years, Salvation
Army lasses have picketed us with demands for a half¬
penny because it is ‘self-denial week’. The whole glorious
content of the phrase, arneito heauton, let him obliterate
himself, let him annihilate himself, let him rule Self out
of his world-picture altogether, has become degraded
and lost. That is what happens to ‘consecrated
phrases’.
I have urged that the translator’s business is to recon¬
dition, as often as not, whole sentences, so as to allow for
the characteristic emphasis of his own language. I have
urged that it is his business to transpose whole phrases,
so as to reduce them to the equivalent idiom of his own
language. And now, what of words? Here a consideration
comes which is often forgotten. The Bible is usually
translated by a syndicate; and the first thing a syndicate
does when it gets together is to make sure that all the
members of it tell the same story. If you proposed to
translate the Aeneid in this way, each member of it
translating one book, the first item on the Committee’s
agenda would be, What is going to be our formula for
translating the word pius as applied to the hero of the
poem? They go away, after agreeing (say) on the word
‘dutiful’, which does well enough. But if a single man
translates the whole Aeneid, he very soon realizes that
pius takes on a different shade of meaning with each
fresh context; now it is ‘Aeneas, that dutiful son’, now
it is ‘Aeneas, that admirable host’, now it is ‘Aeneas,
that trained liturgiologist’. The compilers of the Author¬
ized Version evidently did something of that kind with a
word like dikaiosune in the New Testament, or tsedeq in
the Old. They could see that Douay’s rendering, ‘justice’,
was beside the mark nine times out of ten. What they did
IO ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
was to resuscitate a more or less obsolete word, ‘right-

wiseness’, recondition it as ‘righteousness’, and use that
all through the Bible as the equivalent of the tsedeq-
dikaiosune idea. It served well enough; but this wooden
rendering, constantly recurring in all sorts of different
contexts, has resulted all through the Authorized Version
in a certain flatness, a certain want of grip. You constantly
feel that your author is not being allowed to say what he
wants to say; his thought is being forced into an artificial
mould.
For every common word in every living language has,
not one meaning, but a quantity of shades of meaning. If
you set out to give salus the meaning of ‘salvation’ all
through the New Testament, you find yourself up against
St. Paul inviting the ship’s company during the storm to
take a little food for the sake of their salvation. It is a
capital heresy among translators, the idea that you must
always render so-and-so in Latin by such-and-such in
English. We sometimes get the idea that this must be a
holy principle; is it not, after all, we are asked, the way
in which the Vulgate proceeds in translating the Greek
of the New Testament? If anybody harbours that delusion,
he is recommended to consult Plummer’s edition of
II Corinthians; he will find there an appendix giving
about 2^0 Greek words in the epistles, each of which the
Vulgate renders in two or more ways. The word eudokein,
he points out, is rendered in no less than ten different
ways in the epistles alone. He appears to be scandalized
by this procedure, which shows that he knew very little
about translation. It is true, I think, that the Vulgate very
often picks on the wrong rendering, the word with the
wrong shade of meaning for that particular context. Over
that, Plummer is welcome to have a grievance. But let
him not demand that eudokein should be translated ‘be
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATION I I
well pleased’ wherever it occurs, simply for the sake of

uniformity.
Words are not coins, dead things whose value can he
mathematically computed. You cannot quote an exact
English equivalent for a French word, as you might quote
an exact English equivalent for a French coin. Words are
living things, full of shades of meaning, full of associa¬
tions; and, what is more, they are apt to change their
significance from one generation to the next. The trans¬
lator who understands his job feels, constantly, like Alice
in Wonderland trying to play croquet with flamingoes
for mallets and hedgehogs for balls; words are for ever
eluding his grasp. Think of the delicate differences there
are between the shades of meaning in a group of words
like ‘mercy, pity, clemency, pardon’, or a group of
words like ‘fear, terror, awe, reverence, respect’, or a
group of words like ‘glory, honour, fame, praise, credit’.
How is it to be expected, on the law of averages, that
any such group of words in English has an exactly cor¬
responding group of words in Latin, and another in
Greek, so that you can say, for example, doxa always
means gloria in Latin, always means ‘glory’ in English?
Tsedeq or dikaiosune can mean, when used of a man, in¬
nocence, or honesty, or uprightness, or charitableness,
or dutifulness, or (very commonly) the fact of being in
God’s good books. Elsed of God, it can mean the justice
which punishes the sinner, or, quite as often, the faith¬
fulness which protects the good; it can mean, also, the
approval with which God looks upon those who are in
his good books. Only a meaningless token-word, like
righteousness, can pretend to cover all these meanings.
To use such a token-word is to abrogate your duty as a
translator. Your duty as a translator is to think up the
right expression, though it may have to be a paraphrase,
I 2 ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
which will give the reader the exact shade of meaning

here and here and here.
The translator, let me suggest in passing, must never
be frightened of the word ‘paraphrase’; it is a bogey of
the half-educated. As I have already tried to point out,
it is almost impossible to translate a sentence without
paraphrasing; it is a paraphrase when you translate Com¬
ment vous portez-vous?’ by ‘How are you? But often
enough it will be a single word that calls for paraphrase.
When St. Paul describes people as ‘wise according to the
flesh’, the translator is under an obligation to paraphrase.
In English speech, you might be called fat according to
the flesh, or thin according to the flesh, but not wise or
foolish. The flesh here means natural, human standards
of judging, and the translator has got to say so. ‘Wise
according to the flesh’ is Hebrew in English dress; it is
not English. You have not translated ‘Galeotto fu il
libbro, e chi lo scrisse’, if you write, ‘The book was
Galahad, and so was the man who wrote it’. Dante’s
‘Galeotto’ (being paraphrased) means ‘a pandar’; and
how (shades of Lord Tennyson!) is the English reader to
know that?
The sentence, the phrase, the word—over all these the
translator must keep watch; must beware of the instinct
which bids him save trouble, or avoid criticism, by
giving a merely photographic reproduction of his original.
Nor does his task end there; his matter has to be duly
chopped up into sentences. The first sentence of St.
Paul’s epistle to the Romans has ninety-one Latin words
in it. The second sentence in his epistle to the Ephesians
has a hundred and eighty-two. I admit that these figures
are exceptional, but it is the clear fact about St. Paul
that he thought in paragraphs. St. John, on the other
hand, has an insatiable passion for full stops. And nothing,
I fancy, is so subtly disconcerting to the modern reader

as having his intellectual food cut up into unsuitable
lengths. The easy art of making it masticable has been
learned to perfection by the journalists and public
speakers whose thought he is accustomed to follow. If
you want him to read Scripture without a kind of uncon¬
scious indigestion, you must prepare it more or less
according to the current formula.
‘The modern reader,’ I have said; thereby, I am afraid,
taking for granted a point which remains to be discussed.
Ought the modem reader of the Bible to have the illusion
that he is reading something written in the twentieth
century? Or will he prefer to have these holy documents
wrapped up in archaic forms, just as he prefers to see the
priest at Mass dressed up in a sixth-century overcoat?
The latter suggestion is not so improbable as it sounds.
Unlike the French, the English have always been accus¬
tomed to having an archaic Bible. Douay and the Author¬
ized Version were compiled in the time of Shakespeare;
but neither was written in the idiom of Shakespeare’s
time. Read a couple of pages out of any of the comedies,
and you will be sensible of it at once. More than three
centuries have passed, and as current idiom has changed,
‘Bible English’ has become a sort of hieratic language; it
is old, therefore it is venerable (for it is a fixed belief in
the heart of the ordinary Englishman that the word
‘venerable’ means ‘old’). Let him beware, then, who
proposes to alter it. Let him try to render the sense of
Scripture plainer to us by whatever means he will, but
let him adhere (or rather, let him cleave) to the good
old-fashioned diction which was good enough for our fore¬
fathers, and is still better for us because for us it is still
more old-fashioned.
Upon my word, if I had been trying to translate the
Bible a hundred years ago, or even at the time when it

seemed as if Newman was to be entrusted with the work
of translating the Bible, these arguments would have im¬
pressed me. For England, and indeed Europe generally,
was then passing through a phase of romantic revival, and
all our art and literature reeked of the past. Pugin, erect¬
ing Gothic cathedrals while you waited, Rossetti and
Burne Jones covering yards of canvas with Arthurian
legends executed in the very manner of Fra Angelico,
William Morris pouring out synthetic medievalism, and
all the poets, from Keats to Tennyson, dredging the
Faery Queen to get hold of more and more odd words to
impress the British public with—ah, it would have been
child’s play translating the Bible then! I believe I would
have executed a version of the Scriptures, compared to
which the old Douay would have looked painfully
modern, and almost colloquial. But that was a hundred
or nearly a hundred years ago.
To-day, we have boxed the compass. Rightly or
wrongly, architecture is breaking away everywhere from
the Gothic tradition. Our artists, instead of boastingthem-
selves pre-Raphaelite, are looking round all the time to
see what they can be Post. Poets speak in the language of
the day, often in the strong language of the day. Prose-
writers produce remarkable effects by breaking suddenly
into italics, and Filing their pages up with rows and rows
of little dots. The young men will criticize Stevenson for
caring so much about style, as if style mattered! The
most damning criticism which can be passed on any work
of art is that it is bogus; and how can any literature fail
to be bogus that is deliberately written in the manner of
four hundred years ago? Whatever else our contemporar¬
ies may worship, they will not bow the knee to the past;
we have debunked the past.
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATION iy
Am I, then, prepared to haul down my colours, and

pipe to this generation in the airs it has grown accustomed
to, in the hope that it will dance? Must I translate the
Bible in the idiom of James Joyce, or of Louis Macneice?
I confess that I draw a different moral from the discon¬
certing change of fashion which I have been trying, very
inadequately, to outline. It seems to me that elderly
people, among whose number I am reluctantly beginning
to reckon myself, have lived through enough vicissitudes
of public taste to beware of catering exclusively for the
mood of to-day. If the conventions of art can, in our
times, be so rapidly overhauled, catering for the mood of
to-day will mean, almost certainly, ministering to the
nausea of to-morrow. The moral, surely, is that anybody
who tries to do a new translation of the Bible in these
days should aim at producing something which will not,
in fifty or a hundred years’ time, be ‘dated’. In a word,
what you want is neither sixteenth-century English nor
twentieth-century English, but timeless English. Whether
you can get it, is another question. The method I pro¬
posed to myself was this—to use no word, no phrase, and
as far as possible no turn of sentence, which would not
have passed as decent literary English in the seventeenth
century, and would not pass as decent literary English
to-day. All these last three years, Murray’s dictionary, in
the full-size edition, has been more frequently in my
hands than Forcellini, or Liddell and Scott, or Gesenius.
Strictly speaking, the thing is not possible. ‘Peter
stood at the door without’ sounds old-fashioned to-day;
‘Peter stood at the door outside’ would have been incom¬
prehensible in the seventeenth century. And I confess
that I have preserved one or two archaisms; ‘multitude’,
for example—‘crowd’ is such an ugly word; and
‘brethren’, so familiar in ecclesiastical use, and one or
I6 ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
two others. Much more serious was the problem, what

to do about ‘thou’ and ‘you’. I confess I would have liked
to go the whole hog, and dispense with the use of ‘thou’
and ‘thee’, even where the Almighty was being addressed.
They do these things in France, but I felt sure you could
not get it past the British public. Why not, then, have
‘thou’ for God and ‘you’ for man? That is Moffatt’s
principle; but it seems to me to break down hopelessly
in relation to our Incarnate Lord. Who is to say, exactly,
when he is being addressed as God and when he is being
addressed as Man? Mofifatt makes St. Paul address him as
‘you’ in a vision, but the Lamb of the Apocalypse is
‘thou’. In a single chapter of the Hebrews, quoting from
a single psalm, Moftatt gives us ‘thou art my Son’, and
‘sit at my right hand till I make your enemies a foot-stool’.
I despaired in the face of these difficulties, and resolved
to keep ‘thou’, with its appropriate forms, throughout,
at the same time abolishing third-person forms like
‘speaketh’, which serve no useful purpose whatever.
On the other hand, I confess that I have given more
weight to modern usage in certain points; particularly
over the conjunctions at the beginning of sentences or
clauses. The conjunction, it seems to me, is tending to
disappear. Nobody, nowadays, uses ‘therefore’ at the
beginning of a sentence. We say, ‘I must be going, I’ve
got to catch a ’bus’, not ‘I must be going, for I’ve got to
catch a ’bus’. No modern crowd would shout, ‘Not this
man, but Barabbas’; it would be, ‘Not this man;
Barabbas! ’ And I confess that I think our language is gain¬
ing in strength by depending more on emphasis, less on
subsidiary parts of speech. Here, if nowhere else, I have
confessed myself a child of the twentieth century.
I cannot guess what impression all these considerations
will make on my audience; I only know that when I set
them out like this, they convince me. But I am not, for
that, too sanguine in the belief that anything will be done
about giving us a new translation of the Bible—I mean,
for official purposes. If such a step is proposed, I am
quite sure that it will meet with opposition from a num¬
ber of influential people—almost all of them priests—
who will be honestly convinced that the Catholic public
is being deprived of a priceless possession. We shall be
told about the simple folk, always invoked on such
occasions, who like what they have always been accus¬
tomed to. The faith of our grandfathers will be men¬
tioned a great deal, and nothing will be said about the
faith of our grandchildren. It is easy to organize opposi¬
tion, where the discomforts attendant on a change will
be felt by the clergy of to-day, while the benefits are for
the clergy of to-morrow.
And yet, is the Douay, as it has come down to us
through Challoner, really so familiar to us, so universally
beloved? I understand that for several years, during and
after the war, it was impossible, in England or Scotland,
for a Catholic to buy a copy of the New Testament.
Would any other Christian denomination in the world
have sat down under that? In my experience, the laity’s
attitude towards the Bible is one of blank indifference,
varied now and again by one of puzzled hostility. The
clergy, no doubt, search the Scriptures more eagerly.
And yet, when I used to go round preaching a good deal,
and would ask the P.P. for a Bible to verify my text from,
there was generally an ominous pause of twenty minutes
or so before he returned, banging the leaves of the sacred
volume and visibly blowing on the top. The new wine of
the gospel, you felt, was kept in strangely cobwebby
bottles.
No doubt certain passages, familiarized to us by being
read out on solemn occasions—St. John’s account of the

Passion, for example—have entwined themselves grac¬
iously in the memory. But let anyone take up the Douay
version and open it at random in the middle of the
epistles; what does he make of the strange by-paths of it?
Take this passage, for example, from the Hebrews. ‘For
the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a
translation also be made of the law. For he of whom these
things are spoken is of another tribe, of which no one
attended on the altar. For it is evident that our Lord
sprang out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing
concerning priests. And it is yet far more evident: if
according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth
another priest, who is made, not according to the law of
a carnal commandment, but according to the pov/er of
an indissoluble life.’ My ear may be faulty, but I do not
find anything very impressive about the cadences I have
just read; and as for the meaning—one knows the sort of
thing it means, because one has read it in the Latin; but
as a piece of English it is gibberish; you can give it no
other name. The Douay people knew how to write, and
Challoner’s age was an age in which men could give you
a good rendering—witness that extract from an old ver¬
sion Fr. Hugh Pope sent me, from the epistle of St.
James, ‘And he says to the fine suit of clothes, Sit you
here, that’s for quality’; there you have translation. But
the Bible translated at Douay on the principle of Kelly’s
Keys, and then watered down by Challoner to make it
sound less rugged—was there any hope that this would
give us desirable English?
II
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
‘Transmute boldly: render the sense by the correspond¬
ing sense without troubling over the verbal difficulties in

your way. Where such rendering of sense by correspond¬
ing sense involves considerable amplification, do not
hesitate to amplify for fear of being verbose . . . Some¬
times, even, a whole passage must be thus transmuted, a
whole paragraph thrown into a new form, if we would
justly render the sense of the original; and the rule should
stand that, after having grasped as exactly as possible all
that the original stands for, with the proportion between
its various parts, the distinction between what is empha¬
sized and what is left on a lower plane, we should say to
ourselves, not “How shall I make this foreigner talk
English?’’ but “What would an Englishman have said to
express the same?’’ That is translation. That is the very
essence of the art: the resurrection of an alien thing in a
native body; not the dressing of it up in native clothes
but the giving to it of native flesh and blood.’
So Mr. Belloc told us, in a lecture he gave at the
Taylorian in 1931. Is it any use to remember these princi¬
ples, or ought they to be expunged ruthlessly from the
mind, when you sit down to translate inspired documents
for the benefit of a conservative public bred chiefly on
texts, under the eye of a censor who has never reflected
that the word concordat is derived from corl Certainly
there is no official translation of the Bible known to me
which does not abandon, from the start, the dream of
preserving its native idiom, which does not resign itself,
from the start, to being a word-for-word translation. It is
19
2o ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
no use objecting that the Authorized Version is good

English. The Authorized Version is good English only
because English writers, for centuries, have treated it as
the standard of good English. In itself, it is no better
English than the Douay; Professor Phillimore used to
maintain that the Douay was better. Only the Douay was
written in the language of exiles, which became, with
time, an exiled language. Lately, a generation which has
revolted against the domination of the Old Masters has
shown signs of revolting against Authorized Version
English. But whatever comes of that, it remains true that
the Authorized Version is essentially a word-for-word
translation, no less than the Septuagint, no less than the
Let me commit to paper some of the hesitations which

make themselves felt when you sit down, trying to forget
that you have ever read the Bible before, to contemplate
a verse of the Vulgate, with the Greek printed on the
opposite side of the page, and ask yourself, What is the
English for this ?
To begin with, every language has its obscurities; has
words which do duty for two different meanings. The
word ‘blood’, for example, has two quite different mean¬
ings in the two sentences, ‘Blood will tell’, and ‘He is out
for blood’. In the same way, neither Hebrew nor Greek
nor Latin has two separate words for ‘earth’, in the sense
of the terrestrial globe, and ‘land’ in the sense of a par¬
ticular region of it. When we are told that there was
darkness over all the terra at the time of our Lord’s Cruci¬
fixion, how are we to know whether that darkness was
world-wide, or was only noticeable in Palestine? The
Greek does not help us; it would not help us if we had
access to the original Aramaic of St. Matthew. In trans¬
lating such a verse you must accept the responsibility for
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS 2 I
creating this or that impression in the minds of (you

hope) innumerable readers, of whom only one in ten ever
looks at a footnote. It is the same with gratia ; like charts,
it may mean ‘grace’ or it may mean ‘favour’. The Douay
plays for safety; but is there really any sense in saying that
our Lord grew in grace with men? And a similar diffi¬
culty arises over the printing of ‘spirit’ with or without a
capital S, in a verse like Matthew iv. i (Ted by the spirit
into the wilderness’); the old Douay had the courage to
print ‘Word’ with a capital W in the second verse of
St. Luke. You cannot be a translator without being, to
some extent, an interpreter; and the ways of the
Catholic interpreter are not always plain or easy.
What obligation is there, again, of following St.
Jerome’s rendering of the Greek, when his meaning ap¬
pears to differ from that of the Greek? I say, ‘appears’;
in some case the appearance is quite illusory. For ex¬
ample, why did the Wise Men receive an ‘answer’ in
sleep? Why did Simeon receive an ‘answer’ from the
Holy Ghost that he should see the Christ? There is no
suggestion, in either case, that a question had been asked;
and the use of the word is one of those multitudinous
touches which afflict the reader of our English Bible with
distractions. The solution is very simple; St. Jerome’s
responsum does not mean an answer. It means an oracle;
it is a technical word for an oracle. The Greek had used
chrematizomai, and St. Jerome, in his strict preference for
verbal equivalents, did the best he could to give the
oracular atmosphere without using the pagan word oracu-
lum. The Douay, therefore, is translating a shade of mean¬
ing which is not there. The nearest you can get to the
sense is, ‘a revelation’.
The same sort of confusion arises in a much more
serious context. One of the leading differences between
the Catholic and the Protestant Bible is that the former

gives ‘do penance’ (from poenitentiam agere) where the
latter gives ‘repent’ (from metanoein). Rivers of ink
flowed over the controversy; Catholic expositors were
determined not to let it be supposed that sins were for¬
given in return for a mere attitude of the mind, as
opposed to a genuine alteration of the will. Perhaps, too,
they were anxious to assert the principle of reparation,
though here they had less support from the Greek.
Challoner has kept to the old rendering; Lingard, in the
new conditions of a Victorian world, not only adopts
‘repent’, but sets store by the change. His admirable
footnote says, ‘Though there can be no true repentance
which produces not reformation, there is often a re¬
formation which is not produced by repentance’. Pro¬
testant thought has boxed the compass, as usual; to-day,
what it needs to be told is that ‘turning over a new leaf’
does not, unless it involves regret, avail to obliterate the
past. And meanwhile, what was the linguistic background
of the whole dispute? Simply that St. Jerome had used
poenitentiam agere, and St. Jerome must know. But, in
point of fact, St. Jerome had to use poenitentiam agere;
there is no other way of saying ‘Repent’, since poenitet
has to be impersonal, except in the participle.
There are instances, however, in which the Greek
admits of two rival interpretations, whereas the Latin
only allows of one. The word pais can mean ‘son’ or
‘servant’; which does it mean in Acts iii. 13? Westcott
and Hort mark the end of the verse as a quotation from
Isaias lii. 13, in which case we ought certainly to render
‘servant’. But St. Jerome has servus in Isaias, and Jilius
in Acts. If the translator is convinced (which I am not)
that the passage in Acts is a quotation, is he bound to
follow St. Jerome blindfold in an inconsistency? More
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS 23
annoying, because it is much more common, is the hesi¬

tation whether he can be allowed to translate verbum ‘a
thing’. Here the ambiguity goes back behind the Greek;
it is dabhar, not rhema, that does double duty and so
creates a confusion. The Douay imitates, of course, Latin
and Greek in their literalness. But could the shepherds
really have said, ‘Let us go to Bethlehem and see this
word which has happened?’ Does it mean anything?
It is easy to say that the Vulgate must always be
followed, because it enshrines Catholic tradition. But
this is not always true. Almost any Catholic, if asked
whether our Lady stayed with Elizabeth until after St.
John was born, would reply, ‘Of course she did’. But if
he will look in the Vulgate, or in the Douay, he will find
that she did not. In the Greek, you can read it either way,
since the aorists in Luke i. 37 can legitimately be taken as
pluperfect. But St. Jerome represents them as perfects;
can the translator go behind St. Jerome here, in order to
follow a tradition? Or must he, at best, ‘do a straddle’—
invent some formula which would fit either interpreta¬
tion? And can he do that, without ceasing to be literal?
So much for ambiguities. But even where the sense is
indisputable, the translator will be conscious that there is
a right way and a wrong way of putting things; and the
chances are that the literal way will be the wrong way.
When Horace writes, Da, puer, auguris Maecenas, we ex¬
pect the phrase to be rendered, ‘Fill a bumper, slave, to
Maecenas’ augurship!’; we conceive that the translator
has not done his duty if he is content with, ‘Give, boy, of
the augur Maecenas’. Yet that is what we should, almost
certainly, have got if the words stood in the Bible. We
have all grown accustomed to ‘they shall not leave in thee
a stone upon a stone’; but it is not English. Ihe Jews
lacked the useful phrase ‘one another’; they had to talk
24
about man-stone being left on his friend. Must we really

imitate their poverty of speech, under pain of discordance
with the original? There is the same objection to ‘feared
with a great fear’, and ‘desiring I have desired’; both
locutions are intelligible, but, being quite unnatural
English, they make the narrative seem remote, not part
of ourselves; some people call it ‘dignified’.
Moreover, some idioms when translated into a differ¬
ent language lose all their meaning, and serve to darken
interpretation. Tu dixisti, for example; evidently the
Aramaic form of speech which underlies this was as
definite as the modern American, ‘You said it’. If you
were translating an American novel into French you
would not translate ‘You said it’ by ‘Vous l’avez dit’.
Are we bound, then, to translate Tu dixisti by ‘Thou hast
said it’ ? (‘Thou hast said’ by itself is not even grammar.)
To be sure, the faithful mostly know what is meant; they
have been told about it in sermons. But why must the
Catholic clergy spend so much of their time in explaining
that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says? ... In one
passage a Hebrew idiom has been obscured by Challoner,
who does not even allude to it in his footnote on the
passage. When our Lady says, at Cana of Galilee, ‘They
have no wine’, there is no reasonable doubt that our
Lord replied, ‘Let me alone’; the Jewish idiom for
which is, ‘What have I to do with thee?’ The Protestant
Bible, in translating the idiom literally, makes it sound
much too harsh. But Challoner has not dared even to be
literal; he adopts without comment the far less probable
interpretation, ‘What is that (the absence of wine) to me
and to thee?’
The old Douay, in the same passage, is very illuminat¬
ing. It gives the translation, ‘What is to me and to thee,
woman?’ without pretending that it is English. And the
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS 2 £
footnote says, ‘Because this speech is subject to divers

senses, we keep the words of our text, lest by turning it
into any English phrase we might straiten the Holy
Ghost’s intention to some certain sense either not in¬
tended, or not only intended, and so take away the choice
and indifferency from the reader, whereof (in holy Scrip¬
ture specially) all translators must beware’. The principle
is one of capital importance; where interpreters dis¬
agree, the reader must be given his choice and indiffer¬
ency as much as possible, though Challoner does not
seem to have thought so. But does that justify the trans¬
lator in printing gibberish? Ought he not rather, in these
rare cases, to resort to a paraphrase which will be vague
enough to cover both interpretations? ‘Do not trouble
me, woman’—something of that kind.
Metaphors, no less than idioms, have their difficulty
for the translator. Sometimes their meaning is trans¬
parent enough; the scribes and Pharisees, for example,
‘sitting in Moses’ seat’, although the picture which the
imagination conjures up is one of extreme discomfort.
But is any picture conjured up at all, to the ordinary
English mind, by ‘a horn of salvation’? And, if we must
preserve all other metaphors in their exact form, out of
faithfulness to the original, surely it is time we got rid of
‘bowels’? Cruden’s Concordance gives some thirty in¬
stances of the word’s use, only seven of which have a
literal acceptation; our own version is still more fond of
the idea, which disfigures our translations of the Miserere
and of the Benedictus. Surely, as a general principle, we do
better justice to the author’s meaning when we translate
viscera by ‘heart’ (and cor by ‘mind’)?
There are, besides, certain words of very frequent
occurrence which always strike the wrong note when
you translate them literally from the Latin, because they
are not familiar in the sense intended. ‘Just’, for ex¬

ample. Even when the connotations of the word are
merely moral, it is not the word we want; the man who
does not steal your umbrella is not ‘just’, he is ‘honest’.
Far more frequently, justus in the Vulgate has a strictly
theological sense; under the Old Dispensation the Justus
is a man who is right with God, because he is careful to
keep the law, moral and ceremonial; under the New
Dispensation he is simply a ‘justified’ person (e.g.
Romans v. 19). The Protestant translators preferred the
word ‘righteous’, and the word ‘just’ has therefore
passed out of English usage in that sense. (At least,
English authors do use it of the dead, as in Vaughan’s
‘Dear, beauteous death, the jewel of the just’; but I think
he got it from Shirley’s ‘Only the actions of the just
smell sweet, and blossom in their dust’; and Shirley was
a Catholic.) Take, again, the word ‘flesh’. It suggests to
the modern Catholic ear associations of bodily self-
indulgence; but in the New Testament it means, nearly
always, the natural as opposed to the supernatural man,
and especially where his mind is concerned. Or take the
word ‘scandal’. To Protestants it means uncharitable
conversation; to Catholics it means setting a bad ex¬
ample. But in the New Testament it means anything
which ‘puts you off’, creates misgivings in you about the
religious creed which you follow, or tends to do so.
You cannot, without sacrificing clear thought, treat
words like these as mere counters, internationally avail¬
able ; each language gives its own twist to the more inti¬
mate ideas it tries to express. Nor can you even, without
sacrificing clearness of thought, use the same equivalent
for the same word in every passage where it occurs. ‘Thou
art a scandal unto me,’ ‘Whosoever shall scandalize one
of these little ones,’ ‘All you shall be scandalized because
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
27
of me this night’—you cannot find a single English word

which will fit all those three passages; except ‘scandal’,
which is not, in any of the three passages, recognizable
English.
And then there is the coupling of sentences . . . There
are nearly a hundred ‘ands’ in the first chapter of
Genesis, about fifty in the first chapter of St. Matthew,
eighty or so in the first chapter of St. Luke. The ubiquit¬
ous xvaw leaves its trail, not only of monotony but of
obscurity. ‘And thinking that he was in the company,
they came a day’s journey and sought him among their
kinsfolk’—no; that is wrong; translate ‘they had come a
day’s journey before they looked (really, before it oc¬
curred to them to look) for him among their kinsfolk’.
‘Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will
give me . . .’—no, that is wrong; anybody can ask for
anything; translate, ‘Thinkest thou that my Father will
not give me, if I ask him . . .’ And so on. Has the trans¬
lator a right to recondition the whole system of sentence¬
coupling in the Bible? What makes the matter more
urgent is that the conjunction in English is tending to die
out, and we are concerned to budget for two hundred
years hence. We say, ‘I must find my coat, I’ve left my
handkerchief in it’, omitting the ‘for’. We say, ‘Don’t
touch that wire, or you will get a shock’, not Test you
should get a shock’. We never say, ‘I didn’t ask for
lamb, but ham’; we say, ‘I asked for ham not lamb’,
or, ‘I didn’t ask for lamb, I asked for ham’. Con¬
sequently, sentences like, ‘Surely thou art one of them.
For even thy speech doth discover thee’, or ‘Cast not
your pearls before swine, lest they turn again’, or ‘I have
not come to bring peace, but a sword’ are out of date,
and will come to wear more and more of an antique look
as the years go by.
And, talking of that, what is the translator to regard as

pure English? Is ‘to abide in a place over-antique; is to
stay in a place’ over-modem? And so on. It is not till you
sit down to translate the Bible that words begin to haunt
you with the sense of their evasiveness, and their
caducity. Mortalia facta peribunt, nedum sermonum stet honos
et gratia vivax. Here is a salient instance. For centuries
people have laughed at the old Douay version, because in
Galatians v. 4 it gave the rendering, ‘You are evacuated
from Christ’. In 1940, what metaphor could be more
familiar, or more significant?
Ill
JUSTICE AND SCANDAL IN THE

GOSPELS
In my essay on ‘Some Problems of Bible Translation’, I

used the words: ‘Under the Old Dispensation thejustus is
a man who is right with God, because he is careful to
keep the law, moral and ceremonial; under the New Dis¬
pensation he is simply a justified person. ... Or take the
word scandal. ... In the New Testament it means any¬
thing which puts you off, creates misgivings in you about
the religious creed which you follow, or tends to do so’.
I felt that these statements of mine were rather contro¬
versial, and half hoped they would produce some angry
protest, to which I could make a full reply. It did not
come, and I could not be at the trouble of writing a
bogus protest myself. It seems more straightforward to
publish, unsolicited, the answer which I should have
made, if there had been any protest.
‘In the prevailing use of the word by St. Paul, how¬
ever, righteousness means the state of acceptance with
God into which one enters by faith’. So writes Dr.
Stevens in Hastings’ Dictionarj oj the Bible, and it seems
to me admirably put. He goes on to point out that when
St. Paul talks about the righteousness (or justice) of God
he means, predominantly, not that justice which is an
attribute of God but the justice which God confers upon
men; imputes to them if you will, imparts to them if you
will, but something which resides in them, not in him.
‘The justice of God is made manifest . . . even the justice
of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all
29
3°
them who believe in him’—you do not begin to under¬

stand that sentence until you realize that it refers to a
justice (there is no article) implanted by God in the soul
of the believer; that is to say, a state of acceptance with
himself. To the Jew, justice was a state of the soul arising
out of, and manifested in, a faithful observance of the
law, moral and ceremonial. To the Christian, justice is a
state of the soul arising out of baptism, and the act of
faith which he makes in baptism. That is the contrast
which is familiar to us in St. Paul’s writings. Are we to
assume that St. Paul invented this terminology (or simply
took it over from Hebrew thought), or has it any
parentage in the Gospels?
Here Dr. Stevens seems to me less helpful. Dikaiosune
in the Gospels, he writes, ‘is not thought of under the
form of a status or relation; it is used rather in the simple
ethical sense, to include the qualities of a character which
is acceptable with God’. In the Gospels, according to his
view, the term has the same content, but with a different
emphasis. I wonder whether he has not reached this result
by concentrating too much on the fifth chapter of St.
Matthew? It is worth while trying to present, in bird’s-
eye view, the whole catena of passages in the Synoptists
(St. John hardly matters), in which the words justus and
justitia occur.
Where pagans are speaking, Pilate or his wife or the
centurion, a just man is simply an innocent man (Matt,
xxvii. 19, 24; Luke xxiii. 47). The spies in Luke xx. 20
presumably feigned themselves to be honest men. Con¬
ceivably, the justice of St. Joseph is emphasized in
Matthew i. 19 to explain why he wanted to put our Lady
away, or why he hesitated to put her away. These are the
only cases in which the word ‘just’ can be given its
modern, specialized sense. But there are two other
JUSTICE AND SCANDAL IN THE GOSPELS 3 I
passages in which a just man appears to mean simply a

good man; where Herod recognizes that St. John the
Baptist is a just and holy man, and where God sends his
rain on the just and the unjust (Mark vi. 20 ; Matt. v. 45-).
In other contexts, it is not clear whether the people
called just are so called simply because they possessed
desirable moral qualities, or because, possessing those
qualities, they enjoyed the status of being acceptable with
God. In three passages (Matt. x. 41, xiii. 17, xxiii. 29)
just men are bracketed with ‘prophets’, as if to imply a
somewhat lower degree of sanctity. Zachary and his wife,
Simeon, and Joseph of Arimathea are called ‘just’; in the
first of these cases a legal touch is added to the descrip¬
tion, when we are told that they ‘were both just before
God, walking in all the commandments and justifications
of the Lord without blame’ (Luke i. 6, ii. 2^, xxiii. ô).
1 he Pharisees are anxious to appear just before men; but
they will be held responsible for the blood of all the just
men who have been killed, from the just Abel down to
Zacharias (Matt, xxiii. 28, 3^). ‘Acceptable with God’
would serve, in all these cases, as a possible synonym,
but it is not clear that the context demands it; ‘upright’
would almost meet the situation.
In other passages again, the predominant sense of the
word just is surely one of status; the just are the people
of whom God approves, as contrasted with the people of
whom he disapproves. When we hear that at the last day
the just will shine out in their Father’s kingdom (as if
they had been hitherto indistinguishable), that the angels
will separate, then and not before, the just from the
unjust (Matt. xiii. 43, 49), that the just will go into ever¬
lasting life, the wicked into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv.
46), it is surely a status (though here of justification plus
sanctification) which is implied. To be sure, the just have
32
earned their title by good works (Matt. xxv. 37)» but un-
consciously. The 'resurrection of the just (Luke xiv.
14) belongs to the same set of contexts. What can the
wisdom of the just’ mean, unless it mean the wisdom
which justifies (Luke i. 16)? And our Lord has come to
call sinners, not the just (Matt. ix. 13 and parallels), in
the sense that the ‘just’ do not invite interference,
because they are, or think they are, already on the right
road; they need, or think they need, no repentance to put
them straight (Luke xv. 7). In the last two passages, it
looks as if our Lord was specially referring to people who
regard themselves as justified by the works of the law; as
he does explicitly in Luke xviii. 9, ‘those who trust in
themselves, that they are just’, whereas in fact the im¬
moral publican is justified rather than the moral Pharisee.
I should claim, then, that if we were asked of some
passage in the Gospels, ‘What does it mean by justV it
would nearly always be possible to give ‘acceptable to
God’ or ‘approved of by God’ as a synonym, and as often
as not you would find it difficult to devise any other
synonym. What, then, of the noun, justice? I do not find
that it occurs above eight times in the Synoptists; but in
three of the eight passages it presents a cardinal difficulty
of translation.
The justice of Christians, which is to abound above
that of the Pharisees, is evidently a morality. And when
we are told not to ‘perform our justice’ before men, it
consists of a series of salutary acts, such as the Old Law
delighted to recognize (Matt. v. 20, vi. 1). To walk ‘in
holiness and justice’ before God (Luke i. 73) may also be
claimed as an instance where justice means the same
thing as uprightness, though here, as in Luke i. 6, it is
justice before God; the notion of claiming his approval is
not far absent. The Beatitudes curiously cancel out; if it
JUSTICE AND SCANDAL IN THE GOSPELS 33
is more natural to think of pious souls as hungering and

thirsting after God s approval, it is equally more natural
to think of them as being persecuted for the sake of a
moial principle (Matt. v. 6, io). What are we to say,
then, of the three remaining contexts: ‘So it becometh
us to fulfil all justice (Matt. iii. iy), ‘Seek ye therefore
first the kingdom of God and his justice’ (Matt. vi. 33),
and ‘John came to you in the way of justice, and you did
not believe in him’ (Matt. xxi. 32)?
I cannot understand how anybody remains content with
‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’ as a translation in the first of
these passages. Justice is a thing you practise, not a thing
you fulfil; and even if you substitute the word ‘duty’ you
have not explained how or why it was a duty to be bap¬
tized by St. John. No law prescribed it, no prophet en¬
joined it. Surely the meaning sticks out of the passage, if
you will only get away for a moment from the tyranny of
words. To receive John’s baptism is to make an effort—
the best then available—to put yourself-right with God.
It was fitting that our Lord should receive this baptism
for the same reasons—whatever they were—which made
it fitting that he should undergo circumcision, another
‘justifying’ ceremony. ‘It is fitting that we should win
God’s acceptance in every way we can’—that is not a
translation, perhaps, but it surely gives the sense of the
speech.
In the second passage, it is barely possible to interpret
‘his justice’ as meaning ‘justice like his’ (cf. Matt. v. 48).
But such a rendering lacks both precedent and plausi¬
bility. This the old Douay translators evidently felt; they
realized that a reference to God’s subjective attributes was
out of place, and gave us, not ‘his justice’, but ‘the
justice of him’. They evidently intended to bring this
phrase into line with those alluded to above, where St.
34
Paul speaks of the justice of God; meaning thereby, not
the justice which God possesses, but the justice of which
he is author—that is, the state of justification. ‘Seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his acceptance, his ap¬
proval’ ; that is, surely, the obvious sense. At the begin¬
ning of the chapter, our Lord has warned us that we
should not aim at being justified in the sight of men; at
the end of it, he puts before us as of paramount import¬
ance the aim of being justified in the sight of God.
‘John shewed you the way to be good ; so Dr.
Moffatt for venit in via justitiae—can any parallel be ad¬
duced, any probability be urged, for this appallingly flat
rendering? The context, of course, with its reference to
the publicans and harlots believing, might lend a smudgy
colour to this sort of language. But Lagrange warns us not
to be led astray by the context: ‘ Venir dans une voie de
justice est une locution semitique pour indiquer une ex¬
treme sollicitude a observer la loi . . . Jean est venu, et
precisement vers vous, et dans la voie de la justice qui
est votre fort’. It is a repetition of ‘John came neither
eating nor drinking’; the strict Nazirite paradoxically
appeals to the lesser breeds without the Law, fails to
appeal to the Law’s jealous custodians. John came with
all the strict observance which could be supposed, under
the Old Dispensation, to win God’s acceptance; it was
all wasted on you.
In all these three passages, if nowhere else, I should
claim that the Pauline sense of dikaiosune, as the sum of
the conditions which qualify a soul for God’s approval, is
the only key which fits the lock of the original without
groaning reluctance.
Skandalon is a word which has less of pre-history, less

of background, to confuse us. In the Old Testament it is
JUSTICE AND SCANDAL IN THE GOSPELS 3^
used, nearly always by a metaphor, in conjunction with

pagis, a snare, or lithos proskommatos, a stumbling-block;
and with the latter word it appears to be, by usage, con¬
vertible. It was first used (in the form skandalethron) of
the spring which releases a trap and makes it suddenly
shut on you. And I believe this element of surprise is
nearly always, if not always, associated with it; a fact
which commentators are apt to forget. To be scan¬
dalized is, primarily, to tread on a rake. Something gets
up and hits you unexpectedly.
The word ‘snare’ would do for an interpretation of it,
though not perhaps for a translation of it, in some of its
most familiar contexts. ‘If thy hand or thy foot is a snare
to thee’, that is, an occasion of falling (unexpectedly)
into sin, gives you a fair idea of the meaning (Matt. v. 29,
xviii. 8 and parallels). ‘The angels will remove from his
kingdom all the snares’, all the evil examples that trapped
us into sin—you do not need much more in the way of
interpretation there (Matt. xiii. 41). Perhaps also ‘Who¬
ever lays a snare for one of these little ones. . . . Woe to
the world because of such snares. ... It must needs be
that such snares should come’, that is, bad examples
which lead simple minds to contract evil habits before
they realize that they are evil; that, too, is intelligible.
So much for the scandalum pusillorum; when we come
on to the scandalum Pharisaeorum, it is not such plain sail¬
ing. A saying of our Lord’s scandalizes the Pharisees
(Matt. xv. 12), and St. Peter is directed to pay the
didrachma ‘so that we may not scandalize them’ (Matt,
xvii. 27). ‘This saying laid a snare for the Pharisees’, ‘that
we may not lay a snare for them’—it will not do; we
must get closer to the root of the idiom. What was the
trouble with the Pharisees? Not that they were shocked,
exactly—that is a modem connotation of the term; not
36
that they were indignant—that is a false inference fiom

the Authorized Version’s ‘offended’. To be scandalized
is, rather, to be ‘put off’; if only slang were not so much
more expressive than English! In a slang Bible, put off
would translate at least ninety per cent of the scandalum
passages. You have been going along, so far, quite happy
and undisturbed in your religious beliefs, your spiritual
loyalties, and then suddenly something crops up, some¬
thing seen or heard, which throws you out of your
course; you have the feelings of a man who has tripped
over some unseen obstacle and stumbled off the pathway
into rough ground; that is to be scandalized.
If you are a pusillus, a humble disciple of Christ, and
unexpectedly make some disedifying discovery about the
Christian religion, then you are genuinely scandalized;
you do not necessarily fall away, but you totter, for the
moment, in your allegiance. If you are a Pharisee, broad¬
mindedly pretending that you have half a mind to become
a disciple of Christ if all goes well, then the same dis¬
edifying discovery will scandalize you, but not genuinely.
You pretend to feel disappointment, but as a matter of
fact you find yourself rather relieved; no need to become
a disciple now! You are finished with it, from now on!
The official attitude of the Pharisees, at least in the earlier
stages of our Lord’s ministry, was one of taking an en¬
lightened interest in our Lord’s teaching; they were
always asking questions, always offering to be convinced
by a sign; sometimes, one would actually hold out hopes
of conversion (e.g. Matt. viii. 19). But they did not really
want to be convinced; when our Lord criticized their
custom of hand-washing, it was a welcome excuse for
saying, ‘Well, that finishes it!’ to hear that he did not
pay the didrachma would have been an excuse even more
unassailable. But always, observe, the thing that scan-
dalizes must be an unexpected discovery; ‘If I’d known

this’, you say, ‘I would never have bothered to look into
the thing’.
It is the same with the people of Nazareth, when they
are scandalized by seeing our Lord in the synagogue there
(Matt. xiii. S7 and parallel). The point is, surely, that
they had heard of a great preacher, actually a Nazareth
man, wrho had made a name for himself at Caphamaum
and elsewhere, and flocked to the synagogue on the
occasion of his visit. Only when he rose to speak did they
discover, unexpectedly, that this was the boy who used to
run errands from the carpenter’s shop; what a disap¬
pointment ! They had really hoped to listen to something
worth hearing; but . . . the carpenter’s son! Evidently
these stories of effective preaching, of miraculous powers,
must have been grossly exaggerated. It was the surprise
of discovering our Lord’s identity which suddenly tripped
up their calculation, suddenly put them "off, and
determined them not to take any notice of what he
said. They had come prepared to be impressed, but the
unexpected revelation of his identity was too much for
them.
From a different angle, the synagogue congregation at
Capharnaum was scandalized by our Lord’s first preaching
of Eucharistic doctrine (John vi. 61). Here, the unex¬
pected element in the situation which threw them off
their balance would seem to be the sudden excursus into
mysticism, on the part of a Teacher to whom they had
looked, hitherto, for simple moral exhortation. It is
difficult to label this scandalum Pharisaeorum; we have no
reason to think that the followers who walked no more
with our Lord after this had been, till then, insincere
followers. Nor yet can we accuse our Lord of having
given them that scandalum pusillorum against which his
38
most terrible warnings were uttered. In New Testament
usaoe, there is a kind of scandal which does not fall into
either of the theological categories. ‘Ye did run well;
who hath hindered you?’ (Gal. v. 7); it is possible to be
a genuine disciple, and yet to be thrown off your balance
by a scandal which came into the world through no
human fault.
This brings us on to a fresh set of passages in which
scandal is identified with persecution. Once more, let us
remind ourselves that persecution scandalizes because it is
unexpected. The sudden glare of the risen sun withers the
ill-rooted stalks of wheat all in a moment; so the ill-
rooted Christian is taken off his guard by the sudden in¬
cidence of persecution (Matt. xiii. 21). He will be taken
off his guard like that, when he finds that to be a Christian
is to be hated of all men (Matt. xxiv. 10); ‘Oh, come’,
he will say, ‘I never bargained for this; I never realized I
was letting myself in for this!’ He is thrown off his
balance, by a scandal which is half Pharisaical; is he not
secretly relieved to have an excuse for deserting the nar¬
row way? Most of us have known converts who were
scandalized like that, when they found that being a
Catholic was not making an easy choice, and fell away,
almost welcoming the opportunity. . . .
So it was, for a moment, with the apostles themselves.
Our Lord did everything to prevent the news of his
arrest coming as a sudden shock to them; just as he did
his best to prevent later persecutions coming as a sudden
shock to them, ‘These things I have said to you that you
may not be scandalized’, may not be taken off your guard
(John xvi. 1). But in fact the surprise will be too much
for them; ‘all of you will be scandalized because of me
this night’ (Matt. xxvi. 31), yes, even Peter will be
scandalized (Matt. xxvi. 33). For all their protestations,
when the crucial moment comes they will be found say¬

ing, ‘We never bargained for this’.
It would appear to be in this sense that our Lord says,
in Matt. xi. 6, ‘Blessed is he who is not scandalized in
me’. At first sight, ‘scandalized in me’ seems to suggest
that our Lord himself is a stumbling-block, that his
mission is itself something which ‘puts people off’. But it
is hard to see how any sense can be made of such a ren¬
dering. It must mean, ‘Blessed is he who, in his following
of me, is not put off by’ something or other. By what?
Once more, I think, by persecution. St. John the Baptist
has consistently acclaimed our Lord as the Messias who
is to come; now he is tempted to doubt his own identi¬
fication ; what is the new factor, the unexpected factor in
the situation which has impressed him? His own im¬
prisonment, I think; the continued triumph of evil over
good, unreversed by any Messianic denouement. There will
often be times when the hour of deliverance seems to
have struck, and yet is delayed; blessed is he who, at such
times, is not put off by the apparent defeat of God’s
cause.
One Gospel passage remains, in which the word scan-
dalum occurs. ‘Get thee hence, thou Satan, thou art a
scandal to me’ (Matt. xvi. 23)—are we still moving in
the same ambit of thought? It has been suggested that
skandalon here means an obstacle; ‘Thou art a hindrance
to me’, Moffatt translates, as if St. Peter were barring our
Lord’s path to Jerusalem. But where did skandalon ever
mean anything of the kind? It is not the barrier which
visibly bars your way; it is the loose stone or the trap
that catches your foot. Perhaps a stone is meant, in vivid
contrast to the super banc petram of a moment ago; but
only a small stone, interrupting the evenness of the path.
Our Lord seems here, by condescension, to represent
himself as a pusillus, capable of being scandalized, of oeing

thrown out of his true course by the bad advice offered
him. ‘You surprise me’ would almost be a rendering;
what more unexpected snare for those feet, Jerusalem-
bound, than one laid by Peter? Though possibly, here,
there is some hint of the language which treats human
affection as a snare; so King Saul let Michal marry David,
that she might be a snare to him (I Kings xviii. 21).
How to render skandalizein is a problem, even if you
think you have got a consistent account of its meaning.
Where scandalum pusillorum is concerned, ‘to be an occa¬
sion of sin to’ is literal, but perhaps in some places over-
definite; ‘to hurt the conscience of’ is really nearer the
mark. And perhaps, ironically, the latter rendering
might do also for scandalum Pharisaeorum. In most of the
other passages discussed above, I feel the nearest equiva¬
lent is ‘to disappoint’; no other translation suggests that
idea of unexpectedness which so dominates the metaphor.
IV
CHALLONER AND THE DOUAY

VERSION 1
Father Francis Blyth, sometime Vicar Provincial of the

English Carmelites, is a figure little remembered. Yet,
unobtrusively enough, he has left his mark on English-
speaking Catholicism; it was he who collaborated with
Bishop Challoner first in the editing, then in the re¬
writing, of the old Douay Bible. Like Challoner himself,
he was one of the rare converts of that age; so that our
present version of the Scriptures is altogether the work
of men who had received the cadences of the Authorized
Version with the ears of childhood. One may add, it was
the work of men who instinctively thought of the Bible
as a book meant to be read, not as a flinty deposit for
theologians to quarry texts from. ‘Two men wrote a
Lexicon, Liddell and Scott; one half was clever, and one
half was not’—it is always impossible to determine how
much we owe to which collaborator, when a recension
appears under such auspices. Our instinct is to guess
that the less famous and the less busy of the pair did, at
least, the greater part of the donkey-work. But it is to be
presumed in any case that the Vicar Apostolic, not the
Vicar Provincial, had the final say when it came to re¬
vision. Challoner must be the chief target for whatever
praise or blame we are inclined to bestow on the
undertaking.
And indeed the whole conception bears Challoner’s
lAn essay contributed to Richard Challoner, 1691-1781 (West¬
minster, 1946).
4i
42
stamp. It was the age of the Encyclopaedists; chili blasts
of rationalism threatened to stunt the development of
spirituality. And Challoner, like his contemporary John
Wesley, saw that if a religious minority was to survive, it
must have a culture of its own, a literature of its own.
Like Wesley, he settled down with incredible energy to
supply the lack himself, and formed, by sheer applica¬
tion, the type of culture which is still, on the whole, that
of English Catholics, only leaving Faber to write the
hymns. If we have since re-edited (for example) the
Garden of the Soul, Challoner was the last man who would,
or should, have complained. He was himself, like
Wesley, an adapter, an abridger, a continuator, rather
than an original genius. In an age when nobody wrote
badly, he was content, like Wesley, to write a great deal
moderately, never giving himself time to write anything
really well. We must have stock meditations for every
day in the year, we must have the lives of the martyrs re¬
written to a formula, we must have the Jesus Psalter
purged of its old-world expressions, we must have our
prayers stereotyped by a manual of devotions. The distant
prospect of Emancipation was already in view; the tone,
then, of English Catholicism must be English, must be
cautious. There was to be no exuberance.
With such conditions imposed on him by the circum¬
stances of his time, it is unlikely that Challoner ever con¬
sidered the possibility of translating the Bible afresh. It
was not an impossibility in that age; witness the version
which gave, in James ii. 3, ‘And he says to the fine suit of
clothes, Sit you here; that’s for quality’. A rendering
like that might have done something to make even the
eighteenth century think; for Challoner, the soporific
effect of ‘to him that is clothed with the goodly apparel’
would do well enough, once you had changed ‘goodly’
CHALLONER AND THE DOUAY VERSION 43
into ‘fine’. His instinct was all for darning and patching,
for scratching out a word here and writing a new word
over the top, never for re-conditioning. Moreover, there
was an excellent source of inspiration ready to hand. In
an age when Wesley was trampling on Young’s copy-
right, and pirating Johnson s Taxation no Tyranny without
acknowledgement, who would blame you for stealing
your material, wherever possible, from the Authorized
Version? After all, it was only occult compensation for
the equally unacknowledged use of Douay in 1611.
What verdict we pass on Challoner’s work—or
Blyth’s—must depend on the view we take of the Old
Douay, which most English Catholics have never seen.
Was it a priceless heritage which the eighteenth-century
revisers ruined for us, or an indifferent compilation of
which they made the best they could? And were the
changes they made really substantial enough to alter its
character? The answer to these questions is given in
curiously different forms. Now you will be told that the
old Douay was ‘a version in cumbersome English, so full
of Latinisms as to be in places hardly readable, but
withal scholarly and accurate’; now that Challoner and
Blyth ‘sacrificed the energetic language of the older
translators for a much weaker one which frequently lacks
dignity’. Now you will find Challoner’s work described
as if it were merely a revised edition, now you will be
told by Newman that the changes ‘almost amount to a
new translation’, and by Wiseman that ‘to call it any
longer the Douay or Rhemish version is an abuse of
terms’. The fact is, I think, that all these estimates are
exaggerated.
I know it is the fashion to talk as if the old Douay was
a really good translation. I am less moved by the fashion,
than by the fact that John Phillimore used to say the
same thing, and he knew what style was. But I think he

was really in love with the vocabulary of Douay, its mere
choice of terms. Here the charge of Latinism has been
very much overdone. Everybody knows that in the
second chapter of Philippians our Lord is said to have
exinanited himself, and to have become an object of
adoration to the ‘celestials, terrestrials and infernals’. But
it would be ridiculous to suppose that Gregory Martin
often wrote in that way; his instinct was for sound
Ancrlo-Saxon words, and only a verse or two lower down
Challoner has had to alter ‘murmurings and staggerings’
into ‘murmurings and hesitations’. The word ‘wench’, in
spite of its pejorative associations, was seized upon by
Gregory Martin as the right equivalent for korasion at the
end of Mark v; and if you have the courage to use it, it is
much better than the pretty-pretty word ‘damsel’,
which Challoner borrowed (though it was obsolete by
his time) from the Authorized Version. Phillimore’s
point was, I think, that the Authorized Version had im¬
poverished our language by reducing its vocabulary to a
small collection of stock words, which is certainly true.
It uses the word ‘destroy’ to render about forty different
verbs in the Hebrew.
But if you admire the style of the Douay, its syntax, its
arrangement of the words in the sentence, what you are
admiring is an accidental quaintness which Gregory
Martin allowed himself, not because he thought it good
prose, but because he felt bound to give a word-for-word
translation, literal as Kelly’s Keys, of everything that was
in the Latin and nothing more. He did this on principle.
He held that if you ‘supplied’ so much as an auxiliary
verb, in order to make grammar of a sentence, you were
interpreting; and that gave the heretics an excuse for in¬
terpreting the Bible in their own sense. The Authorized
CHALLONER AND THE DOUAY VERSION
4S
Version, in Hebrews xiii. 4, gives you ‘marriage is
honourable in all’; it was an attack, Martin held, on
celibacy, and it was bad scholarship. And, sure enough,
the Revised Version and all the modern Protestant edi¬
tions give you ‘Let marriage be held in honour’ or
words to that effect. Not so Gregory; he would not
interpret, for fear of giving the Protestants licence to
interpret. His sentence runs, ‘Marriage honourable in all
and the bed undefiled’, without any pretence of a main
verb; grammar be hanged! So with the much better
known passage in John ii; he wrote ‘What is to me and
thee woman?’ and boasted in a footnote of having left the
reader ‘choice and indifferency’ to interpret the mean¬
ingless phrase as he would. What was Challoner, with his
neat eighteenth-century mind, to make of all this?
It is perhaps the greatest weakness of his version, that
he is inconsistent; hut you must not throw stones about
inconsistency till you have tried making a version of the
Bible yourself. In Hebrews xiii the ungrammatical sen¬
tence remains to this day. In John ii, he inserted the
word ‘that’ after the word ‘is’, and thus fixed upon
generations of English Catholics a false interpretation of
the passage. (In passages like II Paralipomenon xxv. 3 1 not
only Challoner, but Douay before him, had given the
same idiom its right force, ‘What have I to do with
thee?’) For the quaintnesses of the Douay, Challoner
cared nothing; in an age when theologians were still
chopping texts, there was better ground for respecting
its pedantries. He would not admit ‘righteousness’ into
his version; still clung to ‘do penance’ as a rendering of
poenitentiam agere (the Vulgate’s effort to provide a per¬
sonal verb meaning ‘to repent’). In his time, as in the old
days at Douay, Calvinism, not Pelagianism, was the
enemy.
How much ought we to admire quaintness? It will

always have the applause of the literary cliques. There
was confusion of great death in the city sounds well,
means nothing. ‘There was the confusion of a great
mortality in the city’ is flat by contrast; but can we really
quarrel with Challoner for giving us an intelligible sen¬
tence? On the whole, we shall be inclined to blame him
for falling between two stools. If he was going to make,
on Newman and his contemporaries, the impression of
having written a new version altogether, why did he not
take his courage in both hands and write one? He will
correct the old Douay where it is too literal to have any
meaning at all; ‘a vineyard was made to my beloved in
horn, the son of oil’ becomes ‘my beloved had a vineyard
on a hill in a fruitful place’, and ‘they have spoken in
heart and heart’ becomes ‘with a double heart have they
spoken’. If these Hebraisms were to be taken out of
tangle, was it still necessary that King David’s reins
should be burned, or a right spirit introduced into his
bowels ? But I have every sympathy with the holy bishop
in his hesitations—what Gregory Martin would have
called his staggerings. I would give much to have some
record of the private conferences that must have passed,
perhaps in the suite of the Portuguese ambassador,
between Challoner and Blyth. Was it Blyth, or was it
Challoner himself, that first raised the question, how
much the public would stand?
Meanwhile, what really grips the reader of the old
Douay and makes him read on is not the text but the
notes. These were not the work of Gregory Martin, but
of Allen himself and a few others. Their length is pro¬
digious, and they are consistently racy, as is all the con¬
troversial literature of that period. ‘Singing psalms . . .
one in this language and one in that, all together like a
CHALLONER AND THE DOUAY VERSION 47
Black Sanctus, and one often not understood of

another’—what more engaging picture could you have
of the early Corinthian church? But the notes contained a
good deal of explosive material, not by any means suited
to an age in which Emancipation had begun to be
imaginable. The Irish bishops found that out to their
cost, early in the next century. ‘Simon Magus more
religious than the Protestants’ made a good headline, but
it was not calculated to endear Catholics to their fellow
countrymen. The notes were ruthlessly cut out; oc¬
casionally you will meet the ghost of one, in the Old
Testament especially (the one about the mystical signific¬
ance of Tobias’s dog, for instance), but the glory has
departed.
It is well to remember that the Douay, whether in its
Martin or in its Challoner state, has suffered from unfair
competition. England has long possessed a standardized
version of the Bible, whose hieratic phrases, familiar in
days when there was more religion about, have seeped
into every runnel of our language. Droned into the ears
of youth for a matter of four centuries, its cadences have
come to be accepted as the right sort of cadences, and
are what the ordinary Englishman means by good prose.
Whether the effect of Bibliolatry on English style has
really been a gain, Phillimore doubted, and Mr. Somerset
Maugham has doubted more recently. Certainly it has
impoverished our vocabulary; or why is Shakespeare such
a mass of obsolete words? But in a country with a
totalitarian prose tradition, any rendering of a Bible
phrase which is not looted bodily from the Authorized
Version sounds like bad prose. And Challoner’s bor¬
rowed plumes only set off the discrepancy; in bulk, the
Douay sounds to a Protestant ear barbarous and exotic.
But that is because the other lot won.
Did Challoner hope that his revised Bible would come

to be known and loved by English Catholics, as the
Authorized Version was known and loved by their neigh¬
bours ? It was perhaps not too late; in the eighteenth
century, readers were already numerous, and books still
few. But whether from inherited distrust, or because
after all his efforts the Bible remained mostly unintellig¬
ible, the result never followed. To this day, so far as
English-speaking Catholics are concerned, the Bible con¬
sists of a handful of fragments read out in Church, two
psalms, a remembered phrase here and there in the
liturgy, and a few dozen dogmatic texts.
V
SOME REASONS WHY
There is no saving this essay from a certain air of ex¬

hibitionism. I may reasonably be asked whether it is not
enough to foist off a new version of Scripture on the
public, without proceeding to explain to them why they
ought to like it. But I do not see how else I am to express
my gratitude to many who have had faults to find with my
translation, and written to tell me so—still less, how to
express it to those who had faults to find and did not
write to tell me so. A criticism can usually be set out in
a few lines; the reply to it demands, commonly, ten
times the space. And when people have written to me
making suggestions—usually suggestions which had
already been made, and set aside—I have for the most
part contented myself with saying that I had made a mark
against the passage and would think it over; I simply had
not the paper, let alone the time, to explain my reasons
to each. What I propose to do here is to reprint, with a
friend’s permission, some criticisms which occurred to
him or to his friends, in his own words; then to make
my defence as best I can. I think he differs from most of
my correspondents in that he genuinely wants me to con¬
vince him, instead of wanting to convince me. But he is
not a mere man of straw, put up by me to attack my
efforts at translation, just where I think the opportunity
of defence is strongest. His are genuine criticisms ; those
of a man well versed in the classics and in English litera¬
ture, and with a mind of great exactitude. Since he does
not wish me to mention his name, we will christen him
Glaucon.
49
So
His main complaint is that I am too periphrastic. It is a
vice which besets the translator; you interpret your
original, necessarily, in a series of mental periphrases,
and these must be reduced to plain language again when
you put pen to paper—it is like coding and decoding.
Glaucon is doubtful whether I have managed the second
part of the process. He writes:
‘Your Epistles are bejewelled with excellent verbs ;

why are you so periphrastic elsewhere? From St.
Matthew one might quote “offer resistance to’’ (v.
39), “it is my will” (viii. 3), “has brought thee
healing” (ix. 22), “make room for it in your minds”
(xi. 14), “made answer to” (xii. 48), “gave her no
word in answer” (xv. 23)—each representing a
single Greek verb. But there are two outstanding ex¬
amples. Surely “it is within your knowledge how ...”
(Acts xx. 18, xxii. 19; I Thess. ii. 11) is pure journal¬
ese? Are you going to make job say, “It is within my
knowledge that my Redeemer is alive”? And why
“have sight of” (Matt. xvii. 3, xxviii. 7; John xvi. 16;
Acts xxii. 14; Apoc. v. 3)? This strikes me, not as
journalese, but as preciosity. True, the verb “see”
can be used in very trivial contexts, and the sight of
Moses and Elias was far from trivial. But you, like
everyone else, write “they shall see God” in Matt. v.
8. If, then, “see” is adequate for the Beatific Vision,
can there be any earthly vision whatsoever for which it
is inadequate?’
I suppose we should all admit that English is a language

of nouns, rather than of verbs. The New Oxford Diction¬
ary will always give you your noun first, even with a word
like ‘lead’, where the noun is only a derivative. Contrast
this with Brown, Driver and Briggs’ Hebrew Dictionary ,
SOME REASONS WHY 50
where the verb (unless it is an obvious back-formation)

always takes precedence of the noun; and if there is no
verb of the kind to be found in extant Hebrew docu¬
ments, Brown, Driver and Briggs invent it for you. It
would be easy to preach a sermon on the subject; do we,
perhaps, judge too much by results, whereas the language
of the Angels concentrates its attention on the process
by which the results are attained? But for my present
purposes I only want to put on record (the French have
a verb for it, constater) the fact that it is so. And it will
hardly be denied that this tendency is a growing one. The
modern reporter in the Eatanswill Guardian has long been
in the habit of telling us that Mr. Stiggins ‘was the
recipient of’ a gold watch from his admiring parishioners;
and the other day I saw it in The Times. Worse is coming;
the Basicists have decided to get on with a mere handful
of verbs, and will tell us that ‘Vasco da Gama was going
in a ship round the sides of Africa’, to avoid adding the
word ‘sail’ to their vocabulary.
With the Basicists I am not concerned, except to point
out that in so far as their movement comes to anything,
it will probably react on normal English usage. For the
journalist, I have more sympathy. It is not, I think, that
he is simply out to use a long Latin word. He wants his
sentence to have punch, and he sees that the good old
verb ‘give’ has largely lost its punch, through over-use
and over-wide application. You give Mr. Jones a gold
watch; but you can also give him a clout on the ear, or a
nod, or an account of what happened at the match
yesterday, or a wide berth, or a start, or a hole at golf;
and the result is that the word ‘give’ is tending to
become bleached and discoloured. The point is not that
it is often used in frivolous connexions. The point is that
it is so widely used in all sorts of connexions as to lose
52
its strength. It no longer hits the mind with a sense of
generosity. But the word ‘recipient’, unpleasing as it is,
does impress on the casual reader that somebody has been
generous to somebody.
I am not concerned to defend Gigadibs; my point is
that the journalese of one generation tends to become
the normal prose of the next. And here I must make an
admission which will earn me plenty of cold looks. The
man who sits down to translate the Bible slips, as a rule,
into the idiom of his grandfathers. He thinks his own
contemporaries will be rather impressed at language two
centuries out of date; he forgets that his own version, if
it is accepted, will last two hundred years longer; by
which time the die-hards will all be protesting against the
blasphemy of altering a word of it, while the general
public will be wondering what on earth it is all about.
My own idea has been to secure, as far as possible, that
Englishmen of 21 £o, if my version is still obtainable then,
shall not find it hopelessly ‘dated’. While, therefore, I
am not going to use journalese, if I can help it, I am not
going to neglect those tendencies in the development of
the language (partly encouraged by journalism) which
you can see to be constant. For example, the co-ordinat¬
ing conjunctions, ‘for’, ‘but’, even ‘and’, grow rarer in
common English speech, and they are rare in my version.
Similarly, I have allowed myself to use nouns instead of
verbs, where I think the noun makes a neater impress on
the mind, of the casual reader especially—and how many
readers, in these days, are not casual?
‘Herod will search for the child’ suggests to my mind
Herod poking about in the shrubbery; when he sends
pursuivants out to kill all the children in and around
Bethlehem I call it ‘making search for the child’—the
process is an elaborate one, best represented by an
SOME REASONS WHY
S3
elaborate phrase. ‘Thou hast power to make me clean’

gives room for an emphasis of which the word ‘canst’ is
incapable; if you let your voice dwell on the word
‘canst’ you immediately find yourself implying ‘but of
course I know you’re not going to’. Again, for some
reason you cannot say ‘I pity the multitude’ without sug¬
gesting contempt; ‘I am moved with pity for the multi¬
tude’ has no such unfortunate associations.
So with Glaucon’s instances. For some reason we only
use the verb ‘resist’ when the thing resisted is an im¬
ponderable—a tendency, or an influence, or something of
that kind. When the allied troops entered a town you
heard, not that nobody resisted them, but that nobody
offered them any resistance. ‘I will, be thou made clean’
is, for modern ears, an inaccurate translation. Because in¬
stinctively you read ‘I will’ as a mere auxiliary verb,
stating an intention; our Lord is saying something differ¬
ent, he is saying: ‘You wonder whether I have the will to
do this; well, as a matter of fact I have’. ‘If you will make
room for it in your minds’—surely ‘if you will receive it’
is meaningless to our ears? ‘If you can take it,’ we say;
slang is always vigorous, but I try to resist the temptation
of translating the Bible into slang. What else could one
say? ‘Made answer to’ and ‘gave her no word in answer’
are, I admit, artificial phrases, but they bite, as the much
over-used word ‘answer’ does not bite. ‘Has brought thee
healing’ is perhaps in a different category. ‘Has saved
thee’ surely implies too much of a theological event, ‘has
healed thee’, too much of a merely medical event?
Salvam te fecit (not, by the way, salvavit) is a supremely
difficult turn of phrase to render.
In particular, I would defend the use of the words ‘had
sight of’. When a phrase dominates the decisive line of
what is possibly the best sonnet in the language, you can-
not dismiss it as a mere circumbendibus, the coinage of a

pernickety translator.
‘Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea,

Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn’—
surely, even if the rhyme had been ‘ocean’ instead of

‘sea’, Wordsworth would have spoiled his line by
writing:
‘To see wise Proteus rising from the ocean’ ?
He wanted the actual privilege of witnessing, with eyes

accustomed to drab Victorian sights, the invasion of our
world by fairy people. So, I would urge, our Lord’s
disciples didn’t merely ‘see’ Moses and Elias, as they
might have ‘seen’ a rabbit scuttling down the rocks. They
were privileged with a vision of the supernatural world.
Hence, not viderunt, but apparuerunt illis; I hope no one
will defend the hideous construction, ‘there appeared to
them’, here as often used by the Authorized Version? Yet
you must keep the content of the vision to the end of the
sentence, so as to emphasize it. And when the Apostles
went into Galilee after the Resurrection, it wasn’t merely
a casual encounter, like ‘See you at the Old Boys’ Dinner,
I suppose?’ When they reached Galilee, their eyes were
to witness the truth of an inconceivably important fact;
they were to gratify their passionate longing to look at
the Face they knew. I don’t see how you are to call the
reader’s attention (always ready to wander where the
Bible is concerned) to the point of the story without
slowing it up a bit, and saying ‘There you shall have sight
of’ —something worth a million Proteuses.
Glaucon objects that, in order to be consistent, I
should have written, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart; they
shall have sight of God’; he might also want me to have
SOME REASONS WHY SS
written, ‘Sir, we would have sight of Jesus’, in John xii.

21. But, apart from the fact that my committee were
nagging at me a good deal for not leaving the Beatitudes
as they stood (as being one of the New Testament passages
Catholics are supposed to know by heart), I don’t think
I felt the need of periphrasis there. ‘Seeing God’ is from
any merely natural point of view such a direct contradic¬
tion in terms that it arrests the mind (I think) without
difficulty. Even as a matter of rhythm, the two stressed
monosyllables, ‘see’ and ‘God’, warn the reader to go
slow; he gets no such warning with ‘they saw Moses and
Elias’, or ‘there you shall see him’. As for the Greeks at
the pasch, 1 have never been quite clear what the nature
of their demand was ; i.e. whether they were not merely
asking to ‘see’ our Lord in the modern sense of ‘having
an interview with him’, as presumably in Galatians i. i 8.
I don’t think the context justifies you in making a splash
of the thing.
I am much less certain about the circumlocution ‘it is
within your knowledge that’. I don’t admit that it is
journalese; it is rather, I should say, lawyer’s English; it
is the sort of thing the Chairman says to a committee,
‘Gentlemen, it is within your knowledge’. I have used it
on three occasions, rather as a Jaute de mieux. Certainly
‘you know’ will not do; nor ‘they know’ in Acts xxii.
19. This use of the verb ‘to know’ is essentially a
Hebraism. In English, when we know that a man knows a
thing we don’t tell him that he knows it; we just state
the fact. An English sentence beginning with the words
‘you know’ is either a question, leading on to a further
statement (as, ‘You know that pub at the end of Smith
Street? It was burnt out last night’), or else a reproach in¬
volving a charge of inconsistency (as, ‘You know you
always tell me to turn the electric stove off when I leave
the drawing-room’). We are all fond of the phrase ‘I

know that my Redeemer liveth’, partly because it is a
favourite motet at Anglican funerals. But if you examine
it in cold blood, as an English sentence, it obviously im¬
plies, ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth, but I see no
evidence that / shall’. It certainly won’t be allowed to
stand like that when I get to Job. In the last analysis, ‘I
know that my Redeemer liveth’ is merely a Hebrew way
of saying, ‘My Redeemer liveth’.
The word ‘know’ is a constant problem to the trans¬
lator, all through the New Testament. Nine times out of
ten you want to translate it ‘realize’ but unfortunately
that use of the word ‘realize’ is modern slang. In two of
the cases Glaucon cites he has overlooked one point
which makes the difficulty worse than ever. The Latin for
‘you know’ is scitis, and the Latin for ‘they know’ is
sciunt. But it isn’t scitis, it’s vos scitis; and it isn’t sciunt,
it’s ipsi sciunt. St. Luke, here, is not using Aramaic
sources, and he must be credited with the intention of
emphasizing his pronouns. In English there is no way of
emphasizing a pronoun without the use of italics; and I
am not going to use italics in my version. Therefore peri¬
phrasis is a necessity; you cannot translate your original
without it; ‘you know’ is an inaccurate translation. What
periphrasis can one use? ‘Nobody knows better than
you’, ‘You know if nobody else does’, ‘You at any rate
know’—something of that kind? I confess that I would
prefer one of these to the rather stilted form of speech I
have used, but I know they would make people just as
angry as it makes Glaucon. People will not see the diffi¬
culties, the real difficulties, of a translator. Arguably,
the right rendering of St. Paul’s speech to the elders is
‘You yourselves can testify’1; it won’t do in Thessalon-
1 This change has since been made.
SOME R.EASONS WHY 57
ians, because that phrase has occurred in the previous

verse; in Acts xxii. 19, I am inclined to think ‘it is within
their knowledge’ does really ring the bell.
A quite different principle is raised by Glaucon’s next
objection, although on the surface it looks as if it were
part of the same grievance. He takes exception to my
rendering of credidit, crediderunt (representing an aorist)
in passages like John ii. 11, xx. 8, Acts iv. 4, xiii. 12.
I should perhaps explain that there is a history behind the
rendering in question (‘learned to believe’). I had at fffst
made a flat rule of translating ‘found faith’, which I still
hold is the most accurate equivalent. This, however,
evoked the liveliest protests from my committee, and
with my usual weakness I tried to humour them. In most
of the passages, not quite all, I consented to say that so-
and-so ‘learned to believe’. The concession afforded little
pleasure to my committee, and to Glaucon none at all.
He writes:
‘Why do you boggle at “they believed’’ for episteu-
san? True, the transition from one external state to
another cannot be described by a simple aorist—“I
lived at Puckeridge on April 1st’’ will not do for “I
went to live at . . .’’—but an aorist adequately des¬
cribes the first entry into a continuing mental condition :
“Dante loved Beatrice at first sight”; “the jury
believed the evidence of Mrs. Bardell” ; “I met Mrs.
Snooks yesterday and admired her”. If “admired”
suffices for “became an admirer” why cannot “be¬
lieved” suffice for “became a believer” ? And even the
“external” verbs have a true perfect. “Anyone who
has lived at Puckeridge knows ...” is good English.
Why then must you write (John xx. 29), “Blessed are
those who . . . have learned to believe”?
‘But even if “believed” is unacceptable, is “learned
to believe” any improvement? We can learn a fact on

the 9 o’clock News, but learning to do is a process
which takes months or years. Many of us, as Pasteur
knew, go on “learning to believe” all our lives, but
episteusan is an act, not a process, and “learn”, which
lays stress on the process, seems more than usually in¬
appropriate in John xx. 8, which describes St. John’s
instantaneous conviction that our Lord had risen.’
Glaucon, it will be seen, admits that you cannot use
the plain verb to express transition from one external
state to another; you must say that Queen Victoria ‘began
to reign’, not that she ‘reigned’, in 1837. But he draws a
distinction; you can, he suggests, use the plain verb
where you are describing the transition from one internal
state to another. Let us examine his instances.
The first of these is singularly revealing. It is not an in¬
stance of current English usage at all. It is a quotation
from Shakespeare, ‘Who ever loved, that loved not at
first sight?’ And it goes down, because you are talking
about Dante, who lived a long time ago. But give the
situation a modern setting, and the plausibility of his argu¬
ment vanishes at once. Would he, or anyone else, tolerate
the phrase in a modern letter or novel, ‘He met a girl at
Malta and loved her?’ Does not the very existence of the
cumbrous periphrasis ‘fall in love’ bear witness to the fact
that ‘loved’, in such cases, represents an imperfect,
never an aorist?
‘The jury believed the evidence of Mrs. BardelT is
not, in fact, current English. We should say, ‘The jury
were convinced by Mrs. Bardell’s statements’, or, more
colloquially, ‘The jury took Mrs. Bardell’s word for it’.
But, whether or no Glaucon’s sentence is natural English,
it is not a true parallel. The New Testament gives you
situations in which a determining factor suddenly emerges
SOME REASONS WHY
59
to turn unbelief into belief. But Mrs. Bardell’s evidence
was not a mere factor of this kind; it would be ridiculous
to expect the jury to believe Mrs. Bardell’s evidence
before they had heard it. Nor does St. John say, ‘Christ
turned water into wine, and his disciples believed that he
had turned water into wine’; he says, ‘Christ turned
water into wine, and thereupon his disciples passed into a
general state of belief in him’. If the jury had at first been
inclined to doubt Mrs. Bardell, and then Pickwick had
suddenly gone white or fainted, we should be told, ‘After
this, the jury began to think there might be something in
Mrs. Bardell’s evidence’, not ‘The jury believed Mrs.
Bardell’s evidence’. And in any case they would only
have believed in her veracity as a witness in that particular
trial; no estimate of her general worth would necessarily
be implied.
To say ‘I met Mrs. Snooks yesterday and admired her’
is not the same as saying ‘I met Mrs. Snooks yesterday and
became her admirer’. The former statement could only
gratify Mr. Snooks ; the latter might impel him to call me
out. To ‘become the admirer’ of a woman implies cross¬
ing an important dividing line, just as to ‘become a
believer’ does. If you simply say that you met her and
admired her, you do not lay emphasis on a transition of
feeling. Indeed, as it stands, the sentence implies that you
met her yesterday for the first time; and how on earth
were you to admire her when you had never met her?
But you may ‘become an admirer’ of a woman you have
known for years. Just so Chesterton, I think, in The
Napoleon of Notting Hill, says you can see a thing for the
thousandth time and suddenly, in doing so, see it for the
first time. So it is when a man falls in love with a woman;
so it is when a soul, which perhaps has been right up
against the Church for years (as Chesterton was), sud-
denly gets the grace of faith. He does not simply

‘believe’; he becomes a believer.
In the Acts, I think the true rendering of credidit is, ‘he
was baptized’; the late Professor of Divinity at Oxford
introduced me to this consideration years ago, and I fully
accept it. But I had not the courage to use the words in
my translation; after all, the sacred authors allude, not to
the ceremony of baptism, but to the act of faith which
accompanies it. In St. John, the thing is much more com¬
plicated; he even seems to allow for two moments of
adherence to Christ—one in which you come to believe
in him as a true Prophet (if not more) as in John ii. 11,
one in which you come to believe in him as having risen
from the dead, as in John xx. 8. But in St. John, as in the
Acts, what the author means to express is sudden emerg¬
ence from a state of non-belief (or call it, if you like, pre¬
belief), into what is, or ought to be, a lifelong state of
believing.
I welcome Glaucon’s point about the use of the perfect
tense. Quite true, you can say, ‘Anybody who has loved
knows this or that’. But in saying that, you do not say that
they stuck to it; if anything, you imply the contrary.
When our Lord says, ‘Blessed are those who have be¬
lieved’, does he include those who used to believe and
have ceased to? Does he include Goebbels and Himmler?
Very well then, the phrase ‘have believed’ gives you the
wrong emphasis. At the back of their minds, the people
who made the Authorized Version knew this. In John
viii. 31, they translated the Greek perfect participle as if
it were a present participle; they knew it would look
silly to translate ‘Then Jesus said to the Jews who had
believed in him’, so they left out the ‘had’.
But, granted that you need two different formulas for
expressing (i) the state of being a believer, and (ii) the
SOME REASONS WHY 6l
process of coming into that state, is ‘learn’, asks Glaucon,

the right word to use? He objects that learning is a thing
which takes time, whereas my process of ‘learning to
believe’ is a matter of a split second. I don’t enormously
like ‘learning to believe’; but ‘began to believe’ is am¬
biguous, suggesting a half-way stage, and ‘came to believe’
would seldom be tolerable. I do not admit Glaucon’s
distinction between ‘learning to’ and ‘learning that’.
There is, it seems to me, an applied (almost a meta¬
phorical) use of the verb, with which we are all familiar.
Milton, who wrote:
‘Henceforth I learn that to obey is best,’
also makes St. Michael promise to Adam a revelation of
the future, which will enable him
‘to learn
True patience, and to temper joy with fear.’
Learning is the correlative of teaching, and when a
schoolmaster says, ‘I’ll teach you to throw stones at my
window’, the process indicated (though perhaps not as
momentary as the pupil could wish) does not mean long
weeks of laborious study. Surely it is good English to say
that somebody ‘learned to look both ways before crossing
the street’, as the result of a single accident?
Glaucon’s next complaint deals with a quite different
point; one, probably, which has exercised the reader
more than those hitherto mentioned. In translating a
sacred text, of which many older versions have become
familiar, you are naturally pulled up now and again by the
consideration, ‘Will the public stand a rendering so
different from the rendering it is accustomed to?’ I do
not profess to have dismissed this consideration altogether
from my mind; and, once you allow it to weigh with you
at all, you are easily betrayed into inconsistencies. It
appears to Glaucon (or to his friends) that I have not

avoided this pitfall. He writes:
‘On what principle do you retain or reject arch¬

aisms? “Restored be thy health” is certainly not
current English, nor does even patriotism induce us to
say “Hail Churchill”; yet you do not alter a word of
the Paternoster or the Angelic Salutation. Dramatic
moments call for economy of phrasing, but you
practise no economy when you write “Lazarus, come
out here” (John xi. 43), “See, here is the man”
xix. 3-), “I am thirsty” (xix. 28). Surely here, if any¬
where, the familiar archaisms are preferable to
flaccidity?’
I need hardly say that ‘Restored be thy health’ is not a

phrase 1 have used in my translation; it is only a parallel
to illustrate the words ‘Hallowed be thy name’, which I
have preserved in the Paternoster. My principle (if it can
be called a principle) was to leave familiar prayer-forms
untouched; but of these there are only two, the Pater and
the Ave. (The Psalms, I am afraid, call for more radical
treatment, and nothing will induce me to let king David
pray for the renewing of a right spirit within his bowels.)
In the story of the Passion I have introduced as much of
the old version into my work as is consistent with
Matthew ix. 16. But I could not see my way to adopting
here (as I had to adopt in the prayer-forms) a definitely
obsolete way of writing. I would have liked to write ‘I
thirst’, but it would have stood out a mile from the con¬
text as a piece of Elizabethan English, and the effect
would be, I think, painfully ugly. I had less scruple about
Ecce homo, because I have never been able to see that
‘Behold the man!’ is a translation of it. The Latin for
‘Behold the man!’ is Aspicite hominem; to translate Ecce
SOME REASONS WHY
63
homo quite literally, you would have to print it with a

comma, ‘Behold, the man!’ which is poor English of any
period. What Pilate said, of course, was ‘Here is the
fellow’—homo, not vir. I have enough reverence for tradi¬
tion to retain the word ‘man’, but not enough to retain a
form of speech which does no justice to what Pilate was
in fact saying. ‘Lazarus, come out here’ has been altered
in the published edition, but not, I’m afraid, in a way
which will give Glaucon any satisfaction, for the phrase
becomes even longer, ‘Come out, Lazarus, to my side’.
Lazarus, come forth,’ misses, surely, a point in the
Greek (though the Latin has missed it too); the word
deuro is an invitation, a beckoning, ‘come to me . But I
confess that in any case my principles wouldn’t have
allowed me to use the word ‘forth’, which is, regrettably,
obsolete.
I include one last criticism, more because it illustrates
so well the difficulty of pleasing everybody, than for any
importance of its own. One of Glaucon’s friends had
written complaining that I had turned the ‘pale horse’ of
Apocalypse vi. 8, into a ‘cream-white’ horse. My objec¬
tion to the word ‘pale’ is that it does not denote a
colour; was it pale blue or pale pink or what? The whole
heraldry of the chapter demands four different colours,
white, red, black, and—what? It must be something
distinguishable from pure white, and it seems to me an
advantage if you can get a term which would be familiar
at Tattersall’s. A cream horse is sufficiently opposed to a
white horse; and the Greek adjective is used by medical
writers as the equivalent of ‘yellow, bilious-looking’. At
the same time, I said that I thought the adjective in
question was probably used by the writer in its literal
sense of ‘green’. White, red, black and green—it was a
vision, after all.
64
This sets Glaucon off again on his own:
‘St. John tells us that he saw Death riding on a green
horse—chloros, just like the “green things” in ix. 4.
Why not take his word for it? You do not call the red
horse a roan. In a world where locusts have women s
hair and lions’ teeth, where dragons have seven heads
and ten horns, a green horse need cause no surprise.
Green, for Death, seems exactly right; cream-white, a
festal colour, exactly wrong.’
I don’t think I agree with the last part; black would
seem to me more appropriate than green as a symbol of
death. Curiously, Coleridge makes death ride on a white
horse:
‘He saw an apothecary on a white horse
Ride by on his own vocations,
And it put him in mind of his old friend,
Death in the Revelations.’
I don’t think my committee would have stood for a green
horse. But my motive for avoiding it was a perfectly
simple one—I was translating the Vulgate. I don’t mind
‘interpreting’ the Vulgate to the extent of risking
‘cream-white’ when it gives you ‘pale’, which is not a
colour. But when the Vulgate definitely avoids translating
chloros ‘green’, and elects in favour of the wider meaning,
I feel bound to follow it. I have done so in many places
with regret; I have, for instance, given ‘angel’ in
Matthew xi. 10. I know ‘messenger’ is right, but I cannot
see how the American Revisers get ‘messenger’ out of the
Latin angelum.
One man’s meat is another man’s poison; and I
imagine that most people who have had the patience to
read some of my New Testament version, and then to
read this essay, will be angrily muttering that Glaucon
SOME REASONS WHY 6<r
has taken me up on the wrong points; thej could have

given me far worse teasers. I shall be very ready to defend
myself against assault from other quarters. But at least I
hope the length of this essay will have brought home to
some of my brethren how difficult it is to answer one’s
critics in a short space.
VI
NINE YEARS’ HARD1
I have spent the last nine years, when not otherwise em¬
ployed, in translating the Holy Bible from beginning to
end. I could have made rather better time, if it had not
been for the necessity of replying, sometimes in print
but far more often in private correspondence, to the
criticisms and the queries of the public. You see, it is no
ordinary task. If you translate, say, the Summa of St.
Thomas, you expect to be cross-examined by people
who understand philosophy and by people who under¬
stand Latin; no one else. If you translate the Bible, you
are liable to be cross-examined by anybody; because
everybody thinks he knows already what the Bible means.
And the form which these questions take is a very in¬
teresting one ; nearly always it is, ‘Why did you alter such
and such a passage?’ Why did I alter it—when you say
you are going to translate the Bible, it is assumed that
you do not mean to do anything of the kind. It is assumed
that you mean to revise the existing translation, with
parts of which we are all familiar; altering a word here
and a word there, like a compositor correcting proofs
with a pair of tweezers. The more you plagiarize from the
work of previous interpreters, the better your public
will be pleased. In the few minutes now at my disposal, I
do not mean to answer, in general or in detail, that kind
of objection. I mean simply to discuss some of the diffi¬
culties which attend the process of translating the Bible;
really translating it, in the sense of approaching it as if
nobody had ever translated it before.
1A broadcast talk given on Radio Eireann.
66
nine years’ HARD 67
In all translation, I suppose three things are expected

of the interpreter. You must find out what the original
means; you must try to express in your own language
what the other man was trying to express in his. Nor can
you do this by a merely literal rendering. If you are
translating a French author, and come across the phrase,
y se noja , your first instinct is to translate it literally,
‘he drowned himself’. But then you have to reflect that
se nojer in French need not mean to drown oneself; it
may mean simply to get drowned. Was it accident or
suicide? You must find out from the context; if that is
impossible, you must hedge; ‘he met his death by drown¬
ing’ will leave it doubtful whether it was suicide or not.
Nor is it enough to find out what the man said, you must
find out why he said it; you must reproduce, not only the
sense, but the emphasis of his words. To take a very
simple instance, which is constantly recurring, the
Hebrew has one word that does duty for ‘and’ and ‘but’;
and wherever the translator comes across that word in the
Old Testament he must decide between them, some¬
times at the risk of making nonsense of a whole para¬
graph. And finally, if your original has any pretensions to
literary merit, you want to preserve the rhetoric of it,
which (commonly at least) you cannot do by a literal
translation. ‘Etre ou ne pas etre, c'est bien la la question is
not Shakespeare.
There are special difficulties about finding out the
exact meaning of any word in the New Testament. It was
written, or at any rate it has come down to us, in Greek;
and in a kind of Greek which had become debased
through being used as the lingua franca of the civilized
world, very much what Latin was in the Middle Ages.
You can never be quite certain, therefore, how much of
its native force a given word has preserved; just as you
cannot be certain whether the word almus in a Latin

hymn is meant to convey its root sense of ‘nourishing’, or
is a merely insipid epithet meaning ‘kindly . Worse than
that; most of the New Testament authors knew Greek
as a foreign language, and when you are talking a foreign
language you do not express your meaning exactly as a
native would. To take an extreme instance, an Irish¬
man talking English does not use the words ‘Yes’ and
‘No’ like an Englishman; he says ‘I did’, or ‘It is not ,
because the language of his forefathers had no words for
‘Yes’ and ‘No’. How are we to be certain, then, that
our author picked out the exact word to express what he
meant, writing as he was in a foreign medium? Take, for
example, St. Mark’s account of our Lord’s Agony in
Gethsemani. ‘He began to fear and to be heavy’; so our
Bible translates it, but you will scarcely find two inter¬
preters who are agreed on the proper rendering of either
verb. How much of fear, how much of astonishment, is
implied by the one; how much of hesitation, how much
of repining, by the other? And yet it is surely a matter of
importance that we should know exactly what our Lord
did feel in Gethsemani! Or take that well-known phrase
in the Last Gospel, ‘the light shines in darkness, et
tenebrae earn non comprehenderunt'—does that mean that the
darkness could not understand it? Or that the darkness
could not smother it? Constantly you feel that the tool
which came to your author’s hand was not the exact tool
he wanted.
But there is a further source of confusion. The New
Testament writings come down to us from a time when
the vocabulary of the Christian faith was in the making.
Words like grace, faith, salvation and so on, which have,
for us, an exact theological meaning, were being used
with less precision; they were not yet technical terms.
NINE YEARS’ HARD 69
Consequently, the translator is always having to ask him¬

self, ‘Should this word in this particular passage be
interpreted strictly, in its defined theological sense? Or
is it still being used in a loose, popular way?’ We
translate ‘Hail, thou that art full of grace’, and in the
next chapter ‘Jesus grew in favour with God and man’;
but the word ‘grace’ is the same as the word ‘favour’ in
the original. We translate ‘My faithful witness, Antipas’;
but ought we, perhaps, to translate ‘My faithful martyr’ ?
By the time the Apocalypse was written, it may be that
the term had already an official connotation. ‘Sin’—that
word was used by the Jews to designate any breach of the
law, culpable or inculpable; and they were apt to des¬
cribe their Gentile neighbours as ‘sinners’, meaning no
more than that they were Gentiles. ‘The Son of Man
shall be handed over to sinners’ means, almost certainly,
‘The Son of Man shall be handed over to Gentile folk, the
Romans’. When our Lord ate ‘with publicans and sin¬
ners’, were they people of notoriously evil life? Or were
they merely Gentiles? ‘Tend the church of God, in which
the holy Spirit has made you bishops’—should it be
‘bishops’? Or should it be just ‘overseers’? Constantly
the doubt recurs, ‘Am I making the language of the New
Testament too vague? Or am I making it too stereotyped?
Am I reading too much into it, or too little?’
All this the translator must take into account if he is
going to do justice to an individual phrase, an individual
sentence. But his duty does not end there; he must
follow the thought of his original, and make it intelligible
to the reader, bringing out the emphatic word or words
in each sentence, indicating its logical connexion with
what goes before and what follows. He must make the
whole paragraph hang together and convey a message.
That duty was apt to be overlooked by the older trans-
lators, if only for this reason—that the Bible was printed

in verses; and, by a trick of our natures, if a page of print
is broken up to the eye, we do not expect it to convey
any coherent impression to the mind. Any verse in the
Bible was a ‘text’; you preached from it, you quoted it
in theological arguments, you did not look to see what
the setting of it was, or how it fitted in. We are so
accustomed to this piece-meal way of approaching the
Bible that hundreds of priests, well enough grounded in
Latin, read the epistle for Christmas Eve without noticing
that there is no main verb in it.
I don’t say that it is easy to bring out the general sense
of a Biblical passage. Sometimes, for example, in the
Prophets, you have to give up, and admit that these
passages may have been intelligible to the people they
were written for, but certainly aren’t to us. But in St.
Paul’s epistles, for example, or in the Book of Job, it is
quite clear that there is a thread of argument running all
through, though it is very far indeed from lying on the
surface. To present your material so that this thread of
argument becomes apparent is no easy matter; but you
have got to do it, if the Bible is to be read as a book, and
not merely studied as a lesson.
I said it was the translator’s business, in the third place,
to preserve the idiom of his original. That means, not
that he must copy it, which would be easy enough; he
must transpose it into the idiom of his own language.
Some of us, when we were at school and did Latin,
studied that splendid outburst of Cicero against Catiline
in the Pvoman senate, which begins, ‘How long, O
Catiline, will you abuse our patience?’ At least, that was
how we rendered it, and thereby ruined it; you lose all
the force of the original. We should have said, ‘What,
Catiline! Still taking advantage of our forbearance?’ It is
NINE YEARS’ HARD 7!
typical of the difference between ancient and modem

idiom that we, when we want to complain that a situation
has grown intolerable, never say ‘How long?’ There¬
fore, when a Hebrew author writes ‘How long, O Lord,
wilt thou be angry?’ you have to translate, ‘What, Lord,
art thou still angry?’—or perhaps, ‘Lord, wilt thou
never cease to be angry?’ Literally translated into
English, the Hebrew loses its force; it could not be
otherwise. A hundred turns of phrase confront you as
you read the Old Testament which make you sit back in
your chair and ask yourself, ‘What would an Englishman
have said?’
When I say ‘an Englishman’, I do not mean a modern
Englishman. The Old Testament record is of events that
happened a very long time ago, under primitive condi¬
tions; to strike a note of modernity in rendering it is to
make fun of it. The new Catholic version of Genesis
which has just appeared in the States contains one such
lapse into the vernacular. When Eleazar, Abraham’s
steward, has gone to Mesopotamia to find a wife for
Isaac, this version represents him as ‘waiting to learn
whether or not the Lord had made his trip successful’.
Now, I am not objecting to that as an American way of
talking. My objection is that an American would not
speak of the Mormons as having had a successful trip to
Salt Lake City in a.d. i8ô. All the less should they
speak of Eleazar as having had a successful trip in
1 8ô b.c. A successful trip suggests shifting your cigar
from one side of your mouth to the other as you alight
from your aeroplane in San Francisco. It does not suggest
trekking over miles of desert on a camel. You cannot do
justice to antiquity without taking refuge in rather old-
fashioned English. A Biblical phrase like ‘O King, live for
ever!’ has got to be changed; nobody ever talked like
that in English. But you must not change it into ‘I hope

that your Majesty’s life may be spared indefinitely’. You
must get back to the language of a period when palace
etiquette was more formal, ‘Long life to the King’s
majesty!’—something like that.
This is not meant to be a complete list of the difficulties
which beset, as I see it, the path of the conscientious
translator. Believe me, I have only indicated a handful of
them. I have only attempted a partial answer to the
question which naturally suggests itself to the un¬
initiated: ‘What, nine years to translate the Bible! Fancy
taking as long as that! ’
VII
MORSU AMARISSIMO
I could not resist the quotation; but indeed it is inap¬

plicable. When Dr. Bird was kind enough to notice, in
The Tablet, my efforts to produce a rendering of the
new Latin Psalter, he showed a scholar’s generosity in
making allowance, as far as he might, for the short¬
comings of the amateur. If, on a first reading, I found
myself murmuring the familiar lines:
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,

But why did you kick me downstairs?
further reflection reminded me that praise from Dr. Bird,

though it be incidental, is praise worth having. And he is
complimentary beyond all I deserve, if only I would stick
to my metier. Never was so sugar-coated an atom-bomb.
Whether the publishers would have been better ad¬
vised to put out a word-for-word translation of the new
Psalter, it is not for me to determine. But I think they
understood that if I tried my hand at it, the result would
be a cock-shy—or, if you will, a pilot-engine to explode
the booby-traps that await my Old Testament efforts.
When I brought out a version of the New Testament, it
first appeared in a privately printed form, welcoming
criticism; and the generous response of the public to
this appeal enabled me to introduce some five hundred
alterations into the authorized edition. This in spite of
previous overhauling by a committee of experts—Dr.
Bird was one. My Old Testament rendering has under¬
gone no such preliminary scrutiny; all the more wel¬
come, then, is criticism of its character from Dr. Bird or
73
from anybody else who is kind enough to read it. There

are bound to be mistakes in it, faults of taste, exag¬
gerations.
A cock-shy—and God forbid I should grudge Dr. Bird
his coconuts. His scholarly instinct will have detected,
from internal evidence, one uncomfortable fact, namely
that my rendering is not, as a matter of history, a ren¬
dering from the new Roman text. It is a rendering from
the Vulgate, corrected over the top so as to suit the re¬
quirements of the new Roman text. Not of my own
choice, the process of correction was done in a hurry,
and sometimes, through inadvertence, the original type¬
script has been left unamended. I am grateful to Dr. Bird
for calling my attention to three such passages, v. i 2, xv.
2, and xlix. 11. Habet conjitentem reum.
But Dr. Bird’s quarrel with me is not when I fail in
what I am attempting to do; it is when I succeed. Pre¬
cisely where I satisfy my own standards of translation, I
cease to satisfy his. Nor, I am glad to say, will his candid
temper allow him to throw out a vague charge of ‘para¬
phrase’, and leave it at that. He has collected a set of
instances to illustrate his thesis that ‘paraphrase and inter¬
pretation may lead us far away from the Latin’, and
invites the reader to ‘decide for himself’. He does not say
whether he regards them as typical or as salient instances ;
whether they are just a fair sample, or the pick of the
bunch. But I know well—et ego in Alexandria rixi—how
hard it is at the last moment to lay your hand on that
particularly glaring passage where the other fellow did
really give himself away. No doubt Dr. Bird has ‘twenty-
nine distinct damnations, one sure if another fails’; but
he has only put down nine on the charge-sheet, and I
must be content with those. To comment even on a
handful of texts will be to indicate the line of defence on
MORSU AMARISSIMO 7S
which I would urge the reader to take a lenient view.
(i) Servite Domino in timore et exsultate ei; cum tremore
praestate obsequium illi, ne irascatur et pereatis de via (ii. 1i,
12). ‘Tremble, and serve the Lord, rejoicing in his pre¬
sence, but with awe in your hearts; kiss the rod, do not
brave the Lord’s anger and go astray from the sure path.’
It will be noticed at once that I have deserted the punc¬
tuation of the new Latin text. But I am assured by a
Scriptural expert that it would be a new departure if a
particular punctuation of Holy Writ were prescribed
with any binding force; and since nothing has been said,
I am hardy enough to transpose the comma and the semi¬
colon. Praestate obsequium illi is not the simple thing it
looks, and I wonder whether I am the person who has
been paraphrasing? The Greek has ‘grasp instruction
tight’; hence our old apprehendite disciplinam. But the
Hebrew has ‘kiss the son’, or (if that can be made to
mean anything) ‘kiss sincerely’. Some ingenious person
has suggested that the Psalmist wrote ‘kiss his feet’, and
a note appears to indicate that the compilers of the new
version adopt this reading. But they do not translate
osculamini pedes eius, as you would expect; why? Presum¬
ably because they dislike the idea of basing an authorita¬
tive rendering on a scholar’s guess. So they paraphrase.
They give you a rendering which quite certainly is not a
word-for-word rendering of what the Psalmist wrote;
they give you a general idea of submissiveness, and leave
it at that. Now, we have an excellent English way of
putting that, ‘kiss the rod’; it preserves the word ‘kiss’,
which quite certainly is in the Hebrew, and links up the
sense with the virgajerrea of verse 9. It was not a tempta¬
tion I could resist.
After that, the sentence wants breaking up; we
mustn’t have people calling our sentences ‘clumsy’. And
we must avoid the change of subject inside a dependent

clause, which makes awkward English. Thus Test he be
angry and you get lost out of the path’ becomes ‘do not
brave his anger and go astray from the path’. The
Dominus of the old version was left in by mistake; I am
delighted to get rid of it. The ‘sure’ path I kept on pur¬
pose, not so much because there is a lot to be said for the
Greek reading here (cf. Briggs, ad loc.) as because it
sounds better and adds, in reality, nothing to the sense.
(ii) Deducit me per semitas rectas propter nomen suum.
‘By sure paths he leads me, as in honour pledged’ (xxii.
3). Semita recta is not, I think, a dead-straight line; no
guidance is needed to show a man that; it is the road
that gets you there safely (I Esdras viii. 21 ; Jer. xxxi. 9).
What is meant by ‘for thy name’s sake’? The ordinary
Bible-reader thinks, wrongly, that it is a kind of vague
adjuration. It means, throughout the Old Testament,
‘because otherwise thy reputation will suffer (as being
unable to afford thy promised protection)’. To reduce
that to short compass, and soften down slightly what
seems to us a bargaining tone, I have written, ‘as in
honour pledged’.
(iii) Attollite, portae, capita vestra, et attollite vos, fores
antiquae, ut ingrediatur rex gloriae. ‘Swing back, doors,
higher yet; reach higher, immemorial gates, to let the
King enter in triumph’ (xxiii. 7). Let the reader, before
he condemns me, ask himself what picture this verse
conjures up in his mind? ‘The ancient doors,’ says
Delitzsch, ‘are to open themselves high and wide.’ Yes,
tell a door to swing itself wide, and we all see at once
what is meant; but there is nothing here about swinging
wide at all. The doors are to Tift up their heads’, and it
is no use translating ‘lintels’ instead of ‘heads’; how on
earth can a door lift up its own lintel? Lifting up one’s
MORSU AMARISSIMO 77
head is plainly a Hebraism for becoming higher; which

suggests to me the figure of some great door (of a College,
for instance) with a smaller opening cut away at the bot¬
tom, which admits the ordinary visitor; on state
occasions the whole door must be opened, from ground
to arch. I may have got the wrong impression, but at least
I have got an impression; has anybody else? ‘Immemorial
gates’ gives the meaning of the Hebrew ‘gates of
eternity’; then why not change ‘King of glory’ into
‘triumphant King’ or its equivalent? The word ‘of’ in
English inevitably suggests that glory is the realm over
which the king rules, and that is certainly not the inten¬
tion of the Hebrew.
(iv) Bonus et rectus est Dominus, propterea peccatores edocet
viam. ‘How gracious is the Lord, how faithful, beacon-
light of sinful souls’ (xxiv. 8). Yes, I am inclined to think
I have put too much into that; ‘guide’ would have been
enough, without trying to be over-picturesque. Thank
you, Dr. Bird.
(v) Et diJatant contra me os suum; dicunt: Vah! Vahl
oculis nostris vidimus! ‘See how they mop and mow at me,
crying out, Joy, joy that we should have lived to see this 1 ’
(xxxiv. 21). The translator of the Old Testament is
always being held up by the differences between Jewish
gesture and ours. We hiss in disapproval, but not in
derision or in astonishment; we slap our thighs at the
dawning of a new light on our minds, not in agonized
grief, and so on. An Englishman making faces at an un¬
popular figure does not ‘open his mouth wide’. But the
dictionary gives a quotation ‘drawing her mouth an inch
and a half wider than ordinary, and mopping at him’, and
‘to mop and mow’ is good Byron. I think it will have to
stand. ‘Joy, joy!’ is good Moore, and though I am not
fond of it, I cannot better it. Why not ‘Aha! Aha!’ asks
Dr. Bird, or ‘Well done, well done!’? But ‘Aha!’, out¬

side Bible-English, is a form of roguish expostulation, not
of triumph; ‘Well done!’ implies a performer, and who
is the performer in question here? I notice that Dr. Bird,
in his own translation, gives, ‘Vah! Vah! Our eye hath
seen’, but does this mean anything? The Hebrews talked
of ‘seeing’ in the sense of gloating over a spectacle; our
nearest equivalent is ‘living to see the day’ when some
desirable thing happens.
(vi) Rivus Dei repletus est aquis, parastifrumentum eorum ;
ita enim parasti earn. ‘From that deep channel whence thy
divine ordinance provides our human needs’ (lxiv. 10).
I hope Dr. Bird is not objecting to ‘channel’; the new
Psalter, in correcting JJumen to rivus, has given pdeg its
true pipe-line significance. For the rest, the verse is
utterly obscure. ‘Thou hast fixed up their [whose?] corn,
for so [how?] thou hast fixed it [what?] up.’ Must we
interpret it as a hopeless tautology, ‘Thou dost fix up
their corn, for it is by fixing it up that thou doest fix it
up’? (‘Corn,’ too, is masculine, and ‘it’ feminine.) Or
must we interpret it as a pointless antithesis, ‘Thou dost
fix up their corn, for it is by fixing up the corn that thou
dost fix up the earth’ ? No wonder if the more unscrupu¬
lous editors reject the last clause as dittography; no won¬
der if the Prayer-book version, by a heroic paraphrase,
gives the rendering ‘for so thou providest for the earth’.
The compilers of the Authorized Version rightly saw
that the channel has got to be connected with its sur¬
roundings, instead of being sealed off at both ends, if you
are to get a real translation; ‘(thou greatly enrichest it)
with the river of God which is full of water’; I have
imitated them. ‘Of God’ sins against the principle that,
in an English sentence, the same subject cannot be
alluded to both in the second and in the third person;
MORSU AMARISSIMO 79
hence ‘divine’. But ‘divine channel’ will hardly stand;

the epithet must be deferred till later. It seems certain
that ‘of them’ refers to the human race in general,
although its grammatical antecedent is perhaps the
dwellers at the world’s end, mentioned in verse 9. Since
all the rest of the psalm is in the first person plural, I have
tried to simplify matters by talking of ‘our’ human needs.
So much for the general strategy of the sentence; my
conscience is not so clear about having reduced the un¬
translatable third clause to the single word ‘ordinance’.
Perhaps there is room for a fuller rendering; ‘from yon¬
der deep channel, divine source of our human nourish¬
ment; such care thou hast for us’, or something of that
kind.
(vii) Deus assurgit in concilio divino, in medio deorum
judicium agit. ‘See, where he stands, the Ruler of all,
among the rulers assembled, comes forward to pro¬
nounce judgement on the rulers themselves!’ (lxxxi. 1).
The holy Angels are not in question here; the context
alone would warrant us in the belief that there was a
Hebrew usage which referred to human judges as ‘gods’.
We have no such usage in English; consequently, the
translator is faced with a strict choice between paraphrase
and polytheism. I have chosen paraphrase. The new
Psalter’s concilio divino allows for, without necessitating,
the interpretation ‘assembly of God’, i.e. Israel (Barnes).
In spite of the singular noun given by the Massoretic text,
this seems improbable; the rulers are not those of Israel,
but those of the surrounding nations (Briggs, Boylan).
The context shows that when Almighty God is repre¬
sented as holding assize ‘in the midst of’ the rulers, they
are to be regarded not as his co-assessors but as prisoners
on their trial (cf. Ps. cix. 2).
(viii) Nam illic, gui abduxerant nos, rogaverunt a nobis
cantica, et qui affligebant nos, laetitiam: Cantate nobis ex

canticis Sion! ‘When the men who took us prisoner cried
out for a song. We must make sport for our enemies; A
stave, there, from the music they sing at Sion!’ (cxxxvi.
3). Here I confess I rubbed my eyes, and looked about in
some bewilderment for the cause of offence. My crime,
I suppose, is to have used the word ‘stave’; the kind of
word Dr. Bird cannot endure, because it is not in com¬
mon use among our contemporaries. But we are not
discussing, here, proprieties of English usage; the com¬
plaint was that I had not translated the Latin. Have I not?
The reader must decide for himself.
(ix) Dominus bellator est: Dominus nomen eius. ‘Jave, the
warrior God, Jave, whose very name tells of omni¬
potence!’ (Cant. Mos. Ex. xv. 3). In a handful of in¬
stances I have felt it necessary to transliterate the
Tetragrammaton; Jehovah to our ancestors, Yahweh to
our contemporaries. I have made it into a Latin word, to
match all the other names in the Old Testament; the
Latins had no initial Y, and no W; they did not use H
after a vowel. So I have written Jave, with an accent to
deter the refectory reader from making it rhyme with
‘brave’.
Yahweh is a name; ‘the Lord’ is a title. Or, rather, it
is a religious euphemism; it dispenses you from the
necessity of pronouncing a Name too holy to be pro¬
nounced. We have the same instinct in ordinary con¬
versation; we avoid the Holy Name of Jesus, and substi¬
tute the title ‘our Lord’ instead. It would be perfectly
conceivable to publish an edition of the New Testament
which substituted ‘our Lord’ for ‘Jesus’ in most con¬
texts: ‘Then our Lord was taken up by the Spirit into the
wilderness’, and so on. But if we read, ‘She will bear a
Son, whom thou wilt call our Lord’, the result would be
MORSU AMAR1SSIMO 8 I
grotesque. And it is equally grotesque to read, in the Old

Testament, ‘whose name is the Lord’. It is not a name,
it is a title. Hence, in rare contexts like the present, I
have preserved the Tetragrammaton.
But there is worse to follow. When you have said,
‘Jave, whose name is Jave’, you have not said anything.
It is not even a tautology, it is a strictly identical judge¬
ment ; and an identical judgement has no meaning at all
except when idiomatically used. ‘Eighty-two is eighty-
two’ has no meaning. ‘Boys will be boys,’ or ‘East is
East and West is West’, means something because we are
using an accepted English idiom; we are understood to
mean that persons of immature age will behave in an im¬
mature manner, and so on. And evidently the Hebrews
were using a Hebrew idiom when they uttered the ap¬
parent truism, ‘Jave’s name is Jave’. It is not difficult to
see what kind of thing they meant. If someone used the
words ‘Our Holy Father Pope Pius XII; his name is Pius’;
we should guess he meant that the Holy Father was a man
of piety, true to his name. But it would not be an English
idiom. Curiously (as so often) you can nearly match it
from American slang; if an American says ‘Discretion is
my middle name’ he is claiming to be, notoriously, dis¬
creet. But it is not English.
The translator, then, has to find a way of indicating, in
English, that the God who is called Jave possesses the
qualities which that name implies. To the Englishman
there is nothing in a name; a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet; but to the Jew it is nomen et omen,
it implies the presence of qualities. Traditionally, of
course, Yahweh implies eternity first and foremost;
Reuss translates it, invariably, 1 £ternel . But the Vul¬
gate Latin seems to take a different view; avoiding, most
unexpectedly, the tautology of the original, it gave us
Dominus quasi vir pugnator; omnipotens nomen eius, as if to

suggest that omnipotence was what the name Yahweh
implies. I translated accordingly, ‘Jave, whose very name
tells of omnipotence’.
The new Psalter, true to its word-for-word principle,
substituted Dominus for Omnipotens, and the formally
identical judgement returned to us. What was I to do?
Write ‘Dominance’ over the top instead of ‘Omni¬
potence’? Or replace it by ‘Eternity’? On the whole, I
decided to leave the verse as it was. The significance of a
name need not depend, after all, on mere etymology; a
name may imply any quality that is habitually associated
with it. And for sixteen centuries the ecdesia orans had
been associating the Divine name with omnipotence.
One thing I could not bring myself to do—inform the
casual English reader that the Lord’s name is the Lord.
‘It was the wish of the Supreme Pontiff,’ Dr. Bird re¬
minds us, ‘that the new Latin translation should combine
a faithful rendering of the original texts with a careful
regard, as far as possible, for the venerable Vulgate and
the ancient versions. How far this faithful rendering can
be preserved in a paraphrastic translation is open to
question.’ I know, but who said anything about preserv¬
ing it? An artist is about to paint my portrait; he asks
me to send him a photograph. I sit to Messrs.
Bulbsqueezer, and implore them to produce a faithful
likeness, to spare me nothing. Do I thereby lay it down
that the artist’s portrait must be indistinguishable from a
coloured photograph? The new Latin Psalter was pro¬
duced for the benefit of ecclesiastical persons, whose
second mother-tongue is that Hebraeo-Roman dialect
which we call ‘ecclesiastical Latin’. In that dialect,
naturally, the new Psalter was written; it would have
been fantastic to write it in the idiom of Cicero or
MORSU AMARISSIMO 83
Tacitus; the Romans are dead, and only a handful of

scholars would have appreciated its flavours. Does it
follow that when a vernacular translation is produced,
for the English-speaking public at large, it must needs be
written in the Hebraeo-Romano-Britannic dialect which
I call ‘Bible-English’ ? Must the common Englishman be
forbidden to share the aspirations of King David, clothed
in living language, because Dr. Bird would have done it
otherwise?
But I must return to wrestling with Zachary. His
pJagatus sum in domo eorum qui diligebant me. . . .
VIII
FAREWELL TO MACHABEES
As the traveller, lost in some impenetrable jungle, and

convinced that he will never make his way out of it alive,
sits down to blaze on a tree-trunk the record of his
wanderings, for the benefit of some luckier explorer in
times to come; so the translator, seeing the end before
him of a task which can never be complete, is fain to
draw breath, to look round him, and to meditate on the
reflex principles which have guided him thus far. Dr.
Goodspeed, leaving the Old Testament to be finished by
an indifferent team of collaborators, went straight on
from the Apocalypse to his Problems of New Testament
Translation. And shall not I, with Heliodorus’ quip still
ringing in my ears, be pardoned if I take time off to
watch my own proceedings? Not, heaven knows, in the
hope of disarming my critics; but with the more modest
ambition of satisfying the unprejudiced onlooker who
asks, in no unkind spirit, what exactly I think I am
getting at.
A division of the subject readily presents itself. Your
examination of conscience, when you are doing any
translating work, is obviously grouped under three heads:
Is it accurate? Is it intelligible? Is it readable? When you
are dealing with the Old Testament, those three hurdles
form a perspective of increasing difficulty.
(i) To be accurate, in rendering any passage of the Old
Testament, you have to be perpetually exercised over the
exact meaning of Hebrew words (and, consequently, of
their Latin token-equivalents) which have been rendered
84
FAREWELL TO MACHABEES
inexactly ever since the time of Coverdale. I have already

tried to explain1 how difficult it is to find a satisfactory
substitute for ‘justice’. But it is not only ‘justice’ that
has no exact equivalent in English; most of the com¬
monest words in the Old Testament, if you give them
their traditional values, are nearly always a point or so
out of the true. Nephesh often means ‘appetite’; and else¬
where it nearly always means ‘life’ rather than ‘soul’.
Shalom is much more like ‘health’ than ‘peace’, and much
more like ‘prosperity’ than either—I cannot remember
Reuss ever rendering it by paix. Emeth is what we mean
by ‘loyalty’ or ‘honour’, not what we mean by ‘truth’.
Chesed is almost any kind of goodness, and the Vulgate’s
misericordia is often misleading; with the adjective, mat¬
ters are still worse. Yeshuah can be ‘victory’ as well as
‘deliverance’. ’Am does duty for‘army’as well as ‘people’.
And so on. Those of us who were brought up on the
Authorized Version have got it firmly in our heads that
there were three main types of occasional sacrifice, the
meat-offering, the sin-offering, and the peace-offering.
But the whole point of the ‘meat-offering’ was that it
consisted entirely of vegetable food; the ‘sin-offering’
arose, commonly, from a fault of inadvertence; and
whatever the ‘peace-offering’ was exactly, editors seem
agreed that it had nothing to do with peace. Always you
are conscious of trying to open a door with a key that
doesn’t quite fit.
Of course, there are occasions where the Latin differs
deliberately from our present Hebrew text, as when
St. Jerome insists on making the skies rain down a Just
Man, instead of justice; in such a passage as ‘I know that
my Redeemer liveth’ you have no course open but to
desert the Hebrew. There are occasions, too, where the
1See pp. 29-34-
Latin is almost certainly a mistaken attempt to render the

Hebrew we have got, and you must put things right by
elaborate footnotes. But worse still is the steady pull of
the Latin token-words against the unmistakable meaning
of the original. And this creates an especial difficulty,
because so many chance phrases of the Old Testament
have been encrusted in the Liturgy, and often in a false
perspective. 0 quam pulchra est casta generatio cum claritate;
the words have got to be used every time we celebrate a
virgin’s feast. But they have nothing to do with virginity;
they are an attempt to console people who die childless.
Are you to keep the meaning of the original in its true
setting? Or are you to desert the original and preserve
the liturgical overtones? The title Sol justitiae occurs in
the Litany of the Holy Name; is one bound, in loyalty to
the Ecclesia orans, to give the phrase a personal twist in
Malachy iv. 2 ? It sounds all right, because the words are
familiar, to talk about the Sun of Justice rising with
healing in his wings. But the awkward fact is that
Malachy says ‘in her wings’; obviously he wouldn’t have
made shemesh feminine if he had been thinking of a per¬
sonal theophany. The word ‘his’ occurs in our versions
because it is pre-Jacobean English for ‘its’.
You get the same trouble even with New Testament
quotations. The word ‘faith’ expresses two different
ideas, as entertained (consciously) by Habacuc and by
St. Paul. Did Osee mean ‘mercy’ when he contrasted
chesed with sacrifice (vi. 6)? Modem translators give you
‘piety’; and it is quite possible that our Lord (Matt. ix.
13) was interpreting his thought. I confess that my New
Testament quotations do not always tally verbally with
their Old Testament originals. (But how can they? Cf.
Eph. iv. 8). In a hundred ways, the vocabulary of Judaism
shades off, by imperceptible gradations, into that of
FAREWELL TO MACHABEES 87
Christianity. ‘Life’ to us means eternal life; to the Old

Testament authors it meant, commonly at least, living to
be a hundred. Da mihi animas! has been the slogan of
much apostolic endeavour; yet Challoner did not hesi¬
tate to substitute ‘Give me the persons’ for Douay’s ‘Give
me the souls’ in Genesis xiv. 21; was he right? ‘The
spirit of the Lord’—how often you hesitate about print¬
ing, or not printing, a capital S! Douay gives you a capital
in Isaias xi. 2, but in Challoner it is lower case. All your
pious instincts make you want to emphasize, throughout
the Old Testament, its half-conscious foreshadowing of
the New. All your scholarly instincts make you want to
reproduce the exact nuance of the eighth century b.c. To
which of those instincts should the translator yield, if he
wants to be ‘accurate’?
Minor discrepancies between the Vulgate and the
Hebrew, or between the Vulgate and modem commenta¬
tors on the Hebrew, abound certainly, but are not of
great significance. If the Vulgate tells me it means a
hedge-hog and the commentators tell me it is a bittern, I
am inclined to let St. Jerome have his way, as long as my
naturalist friends inform me that the hedge-hog does
really make a nest. The principle is the same; the lone¬
liness of a ruin is underlined by the presence of shy
animal life, whether of bitterns or of hedge-hogs. It
would be otherwise if you translated from the Septuagint;
in one passage, where the received text gives you ‘a holy
person’ the Septuagint has ‘hyena’. It seems the safest
principle to follow the Latin—after all, St. Jerome will
sometimes have had a better text than the Massoretes—
except on the rare occasions when there is no sense to be
extracted from the Vulgate at all. You cannot, I think,
be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old
when he came to the throne, merely because that is the
construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously

defective Hebrew original.
(ii) To be intelligible when you are translating a docu¬
ment, it is not enough to produce a series of sentences,
each of which, taken by itself, has a meaning. You have
got to show the argument running through your piece,
or you have not fulfilled your contract; you have not
translated.
There are some sentences, even in the Authorized Ver¬
sion, which must be pronounced unintelligible. My
favourite one is Amos iv. 2 and 3: ‘The Lord God hath
sworn by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon
you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your
posterity with fish-hooks, and ye shall go out at the
breaches, every cow at that which is before her, and ye
shall cast them into the palace, saith the Lord’. The
translator who shows up that kind of thing must not be
allowed to get away with it. The sulky schoolboy’s
defence, ‘Well, that’s what it says’, is no defence at all.
He must be sent back to his place and told to do better.
There are not many sentences like that in the Authorized
Version; sentences, I mean, which make no impact on
the mind. In the Douay they are regrettably common; a
verse like ‘Shall not the land tremble for this and every
one mourn that dwelleth therein, and rise up altogether
as a river, and be cast out, and run down as the river of
Egypt?’ is just an ordinary verse in the Douay, not a
museum piece. But a non-significant verse like that, here
and there, is no great matter; you can pick up the thread
again, if there is a thread to pick up. The trouble is that
so often the thread itself is lacking.
Cut the Old Testament in half, at the end of Esther,
and you may say that all the first half is intelligible, being
either historical narrative, or legal enactments. There are
difficult passages, to be sure, like the specifications for

building the Tabernacle, or the Temple. But you know
where you are all the time. The second half contains
Machabees, which is narrative again; contains the Psalms,
Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus, in which you do not expect,
from the nature of the case, a continuous argument. All
the rest of Part II, except Daniel and Jonas, is unin¬
telligible unless you can translate it, not verse by verse,
but chapter by chapter (or at least section by section) so
that it makes an impression on the reader’s mind. Has
it, in fact, been so translated? Take the rattling of forks
in the refectory for your answer.
The book of Job is a sustained piece of forensic plead¬
ing; the subject under debate being, Whether misfor¬
tunes are, in every case, a divine punishment for some
fault wittingly or unwittingly committed? Nobody
would claim that Job and his friends stick to the point
with complete relevance; their own rhetoric carries
them away. But the argument is going on all the time;
and a good translation ought to be such that, running
your eye down a few verses, you can see which side is
arguing, without having to look up the rubric. Whether
such a translation can be done, I don’t know; I am very
far indeed from feeling that I have done it. But in so far
as you fail, the book of Job ceases to be what it was meant
to be, a philosophical dialogue, and becomes a collection
of purple patches, mainly about natural history.
Ecclesiastes and Wisdom are also philosophical argu¬
ments, though not in the form of dialogue. The former is
comparatively easy, but you have to watch your step all
the time, or you find yourself missing the emphasis and
therefore losing the thread. Wisdom is so difficult that I
toyed with the idea of writing a thesis to prove it was
written by St. Paul, still unconverted. It is largely an
appeal to past history, but for some reason the author

prefers to write history without using any proper names.
Quite certainly, it is the office of the translator to put
them in, when their absence make the allusions in¬
tolerably obscure.
With the Canticle of Canticles, we are on more
debatable ground. Some critics (Reuss, for instance, who
was not a fool) have maintained that there is no unity
here, it is only a collection of love-ballads. But you are
conscious of special pleading. No, if I were allowed to
mark a lacuna in the text at one point (the Chariots of
Aminadab, where something, surely, has gone wrong with
the text), I would be prepared to put it on the stage to¬
morrow. To insert stage directions in a translation would
clearly be vulgar; nor would all commentators agree
about the division of the lines. But you want to handle
it very carefully, and make your footnotes very lucid, if
if you are to light up the intensely human document that
is enshrined in all that reliquary of mystical interpretation.
And then, the prophets! Practically a quarter of the
Old Testament, and yet, apart from Daniel and Jonas,
hardly a chapter you can read with your feet on the
fender. Here, there is no question of a logical sequence
of thought, carefully worked out; the Spirit blows where
he will, not abiding our question. Yet beware of holding,
in defiance of St. Jerome himself, that the prophets spoke
in ecstasy; you are haeresi proximus, that way lies Mon-
tanism. Evidently the prophets—even Zachary—expected
their contemporaries to understand what they were talk¬
ing about. Only, their contemporaries had the advantage
of us ; they knew where one prophecy ended and another
began, knew the occasion on which each was delivered,
and the full details of the situation which led up to it.
For all this, the modem reader is at the mercy of a set
of commentators, who take fantastic liberties with the

text. They assume from the first that it has reached us in
the form of a broken-up jigsaw, and proceed to reas¬
semble it; they make up their minds from the first what
the prophet’s message is, and ring off, with dark allusions
to the Machabaean period, when he starts talking about
anything else. (What they never seem to allow for is a
defective text; and yet in real life a copyist is far more
likely to drop things out than to foist things in.)
You can, I think, trace a continuous structure of
thought in Jeremias and Ezechiel, Aggaeus and Malachy;
in Joel, too, if you could be quite certain whether the
invaders wrere Assyrians or locusts. Elsewhere, there are
such sudden alternations of threat and promise, hope and
fear; the dating of events is so uncertain, the grouping
of them so confused; there is so little to show whether
the punishment of the heathen and the restoration of
Israel will happen the day after to-morrow or a few cen¬
turies hence—perhaps the best you can do is to treat
your text as a series of prophetic fragments, and decide
as judiciously as you may where the breaks come. Your
lot as a translator will be all the happier, if you remain
unconvinced by those modern speculations about ‘metre’
which have mapped out Hebrew prophecy in a pattern of
strophes and antistrophes—but let that pass.
That the prophets, translate them how you will, can
ever be easy reading, I neither believe nor pretend. I do
claim that you can do something, and are bound to do all
you can, towards making them less unintelligible. The
transition from one sentence to the next must be made
logically clear, even at the cost of introducing words
which are not there, but are implicit in the context.
Your vocabulary must be chosen, not so much by refer¬
ence to the use of this or that word elsewhere in the Old
Testament, as by reference to the needs of this particular

passage—token-words will not do. You must cast your
sentences into a form which will preserve not only the
meaning but the rhetoric of the original, or the flying
wrack of imagery will pass you by.
(iii) To be readable—reader, have you ever tried to be
readable? Ever tried to compile a document which
people would read, not because they had to, but because
they wanted to? There is not much point in being
accurate and intelligible, if nobody is going to read you.
Or rather, I distinguish. You may translate the Bible,
as you might translate a French book on atomic physics,
for the sake of the student. Please God, there will always
be earnest people, perhaps one Catholic in a thousand,
who will study the Scriptures; but the reader and the
student (II Mach. ii. 26) are different people. Where are
the Catholic readers of the Bible? When did you last come
across one of your friends with a Bible open in front of
him? In old days, non-Catholics used to read the Bible
as a devotional exercise, much as we said the rosary.
That is all over; nobody of my age who assists at the
public solution of a crossword can understand modern
hesitations about the identity of Bildad the Shuhite, or
Tiglath-Pileser. We are in an odd situation. Nobody
reads the Bible; popes and bishops are always telling us
we ought to read the Bible, and when you produce a
translation of the Bible, the only thing people complain
about is your rendering of the diminutive snippets that
are read out in church on Sundays. ‘Of course,’ they
add, ‘the book is all right for private reading’ —in a tone
which implies that such a practice is both rare and
unimportant.
To be sure, the Old Testament is not everybody’s
money—parts of it, anyhow. Nothing in the world is
going to make Leviticus newsy. But I do not see that the

translator has acquitted himself of his task until he has
made Paralipomenon as good reading at Berners’ Frois¬
sart, and Ecclesiasticus as racy as Florio’s Montaigne. I
am convinced that the thing can be done, however much
my own efforts may have fallen short of the target. And
I am convinced that the thing is worth doing; what
reason have we to suppose that the Scriptures can only
be edifying if they are approached by way of the British
Museum ?
One difficulty confronts you at the very outset; the
whole Hebrew way of putting things is diffuse, whereas
we, more and more, grow accustomed to terseness. A
language which talks about ‘the God of Abraham and the
God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’, so as to make it
clear that Isaac and Jacob are in the genitive, encourages
you in the habit of leaving nothing to the imagination.
Nine times in the fifth chapter of Genesis we are told that
such and such a patriarch ‘begat sons and daughters’; is it
legitimate to convey precisely the same information by
adding the postscript, ‘All these had other sons and
daughters besides’? Even more leisurely is the progress
of Numbers vii. Verses 12 to 89 describe the gifts made
by the Israelites at the dedication of the Tabernacle; by
verse 17 we have finished the inventory of Juda’s contri¬
bution, a silver dish, a silver bowl, and so on—only to
find that Issachar made precisely the same contribution,
which is repeated in full, and so on all through the
twelve tribes, up to verse 83. The remaining six verses
are occupied with adding up the totals. Obviously the
translator must not avail himself of the useful word
‘ditto’. But is he bound to repeat exactly how much the
dish weighed, exactly how much the bowl weighed,
exactly how old the lambs were, every time? There is a
great deal of ‘The word of the Lord came unto me saying,

Go and speak unto this people, and thus shalt thou speak
unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord’; you cannot
omit these formulas, but can nothing be done to scale
down the effect of them?
But all that is of secondary importance. What matters
is that the Bible should speak to Englishmen not only in
English words, but in English idiom. Any translation is
a good one in proportion as you can forget, while reading
it, that it is a translation at all. Do not be deceived when
your friends tell you that they like Bible-English. Of
course they do, reading or quoting a few sentences; there
is a slow-moving thoroughness about it which conveys a
sense of dignity—you get the same in an Act of Parlia¬
ment. But if they would try to read a chapter on end,
which they never do, it would rapidly become tedious,
and the attention would begin to wander; why? Because
they are reading a foreign language disguised in English
dress. Just so, an indifferently translated French book
gets you down; en ejfet is translated ‘as a matter of fact’
when it ought to be translated ‘sure enough’, and
d’ailleurs is translated ‘anyhow’ when it ought to be
translated if it comes to that’. Your interpreter is almost
imperceptibly failing all the time to hit the nail exactly
on the head.
Easy enough to notice, as most of the modern trans¬
lators do, when there is some positive Hebraism to be
avoided; when turns of phrase like ‘into the hand of’ or
by the hand of’ can easily be exchanged for normal
English equivalents. It is a harder part of the translator’s
job to notice the negative effect produced by the absence
of English mannerisms. Here is an interesting question
you may put to an unsuspecting friend: ‘Which is com¬
moner in the Old Testament; the word danger or the
FAREWELL TO MACHABEES 9S
word perilV You will find that ‘peril’ has it; the con¬
cordance tells you that it occurs once in the Old Testa¬
ment (Authorized Version), whereas ‘danger’ does not
occur at all. ‘Jeopardy’ comes three times. Now, it is
nonsense to suppose that the Hebrew mind has no such
notion as danger; why is there no word for it? The
answer can only be, that in Hebrew you express the
same idea by a nearly-allied word which has to do duty,
also, for slightly different ideas; a word like ‘affliction’,
‘tribulation’ or‘trouble’. That means, that a good trans¬
lation of the Old Testament will sometimes give you
‘danger’ or ‘peril’, where the stock translations give you
‘affliction’, ‘tribulation’ or ‘trouble’; sometimes, where
the stock translations give you ‘fear’ or ‘terror’. The
rendering which does not mention danger or peril jars
imperceptibly on the mind.
More often, the difference involved is not one of mere
vocabulary; it depends on the whole build of a language,
the whole strategy of its rhetoric. To take a single
example—your modem reader is impatient to know what
happened, whereas your ancient author likes to spin out
the story, and keep his audience in suspense. If A wants
to borrow money from B, the sort of sequel you get in
the Old Testament is, ‘And B answered him, saying,
Yesterday and the day before, when the Lord brought
Israel out of Egypt, he commanded us that we should not
turn away from our brethren when they were in
need . . .’ and so on and so on, leading up to a refusal
five verses later. What the modern reader wants is, ‘But
B refused; Yesterday and the day before, he said . . .’
and so on. The translator may feel bound to give a literal
rendering; is it not his duty to preserve the integrity of
a literary monument ? But his reader has switched on the
wireless.
Perhaps the subtlest irritant of all is the Hebrew habit

of parallelism. I know I shall get into trouble for saying
this. The Hebrews, I shall be told, when they wanted to
write poetry, deliberately repeated themselves, in some
such formula as Et intonuit de caelo Dominus j Et Altissimus
dedit vocem suam. You must reproduce that exactly in
English, or you will not give the reader any idea what
Hebrew poetry was like. My version of the Psalms has
been given bad marks for this; Fr. Gruenthaner com¬
plains that ‘the lines are not printed to bring out the
parallelism and remind the reader that he is dealing with
lyric poetry in a metrical form’. And Mgr. Barton says,
‘There is really no excuse for this attempt to ignore the
metrical quality’. Now, if I were prepared to take up
that challenge as a mere point of typography, so far from
not having any excuse, I have the excuse of a paper-
shortage. To print the supposedly ‘poetical’ parts of the
Old Testament all broken up into lines, as the modems
do, increases your newsprint length by something like
one page in ten. That is all very well, if you are publishing
hand-books for students. But if you are doing a trans¬
lation which is meant to be read, not studied, and hope,
consequently, that it will have a wide sale, the waste of
space becomes serious. Again, the student in his library
is accustomed to deal with bulky volumes. But if you
hope that your translation will be handled on ’buses and
in bed, you do not want to saddle the reader with extra
weight. There is no harm, now and again, in being
practical.
But I will come clean; I have tried, in great part, to
obliterate the traces of parallelism, not merely in the
printing of my translation, but in the writing of it. I quite
understand people like Fr. Gruenthaner and Mgr.
Barton, who are concerned with students, wanting to
concentrate attention on the technical lay-out of Hebrew

poetry. But what the reader wants, I insist, is to get the
illusion that he is reading, not a translation, but an
original work written in his own language. And to our
notions of poetic composition, these remorseless repeti¬
tions are wholly foreign; when you have read a page or
two on end, they begin to cloy. Ars est celare artem, and I
have been at pains, not seldom, to conceal the art of my
original. Thus, Isaias lx. 4 reads (in a modem translation):
‘Your sons shall come from far,
And your daughters shall be borne on the hip .
Obviously, the sex-discrimination is not intended; the
older children, boy or girl, would walk, the little ones,
girl or boy, would be carried. You want, therefore,
something different; if you were translating from the
Hebrew (the Vulgate necessitates a departure from it),
you would write: ‘Sons of yours, daughters of yours,
come from far away; carried at their mothers sides they
come’. It is quite true, that does not show the working
of the Hebrew sentence; but why should it? You are not
mugging the thing up for an exam; you want to read the
kind of thing an Englishman would write, if he were en¬
couraging a modern set of Displaced Persons with the
promise of restoration.
‘Modern’_I have a confession to make. When I em¬
barked on the Old Testament, I thought I could treat it
as I treated the New; aim at a sort of timeless English
that would reproduce the idiom of our own day without
its neologisms, and perhaps have something of an o
fashioned flavour about it. The further I got into the Old
Testament, the more surely it was borne in on me that
vou could not (as they say) swing it. The New Testament
was new, the Old Testament was old. The New Testa¬
ment was written, mainly, by people who thought in
Aramaic and used Greek as a kind of Esperanto; it has

not the vigour of a living language. The Old Testament
was written, mainly, by people who were using their
own tongue, and expressed themselves naturally in it. A
different treatment was called for, or the whole thing
went desperately flat. What opened my eyes, I think, was
a rendering by Reuss of the phrase, Nigra sum sedjormosa.
He went at it in a business-like way, as the French do,
and produced ‘Je suis brunette, mais je suis jolie’.
Je suis brunette, mais je suis jolie’—yes, it is all right,
there is no slang there, no neologism, and yet. ... It is
not, somehow, the Canticles. Or take that very pains¬
taking piece of work, the Old Testament companion to
Goodspeed. Nahum ii. 9 reads:
‘Plunder silver, plunder gold;
For there is no end to the stores,
An abundance of all sorts of valuable articles’.
Marked out in lines, you see, to give the poetical effect;
but does it give a poetical effect? Nahum has disappeared'
and you are left with the language of a cloak-room notice.
You cannot make your rendering into poetry by just
chopping it up into lengths.
No, what is needed, if we are ever to have a first-class
translation of the Old Testament, is a return to the past;
to an eailier and more vigorous tradition of English, such
as the old translators had, Florio, and North' and
Holland, and Urquhart, and L’Estrange, and Adlington.
They really managed to ‘English’ the classical and foreign
authors they dealt with, because their own language was
still fluid, and could adapt itself to shades of thought; it
was not yet cast into a mould. I say ‘if we are ever to
have a first-class translation’; that is not mock-modesty
about my own efforts. I seriously doubt whether I have
had the courage or the skill to go back, sufficiently, to
those old models. But I have felt, all along, the impetus.
Take the book of Proverbs, for example; why does it all
read so flat ? Because your Hebrew author always writes at
full length, whereas the English tradition is to reduce the
aphorism to a minimum of words. ‘As the cold of snow
in the time of harvest, so is a faithful messenger to them
that send him’—that is not English; the Englishman says,
‘Faithful messenger, harvest snow’, and leaves it at that.
May I give a single, short example, to illustrate the
kind of problem I have been discussing? In the Authorized
Version, slightly more lucid as usual than the Douay, the
65th chapter of Isaias begins as follows:
‘I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found
of them that sought me not; I said, Behold me, behold
me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have
spread out my hands all day unto a rebellious people,
which walketh in a way that was not good, after their
own thoughts.’
At first sight, it would appear that verse i refers to the
call of the Gentiles, verse 2 to the rejection of Israel;
and this allegorical interpretation is put on the passage
in Romans x. 20. But modem editors are agreed that the
Massoretic text is wrongly pointed; LXX and Vulgate are
right in giving ‘that did not call upon my name’ at the
end of the sentence. And they are agreed that verse 1, no
less than verse 2, refers to the rejection of Israel. The
point throughout is that God made himself available to
the Jews; if you may put it in that way without irrever¬
ence, he was like a grown-up playing hide-and-seek with
his favourite children, peeping out from his hiding-place
and making their task of search fool-proof, only to find
that they had got tired of the game, and were not looking
for him at all. In the context, that is to say, verse 1 means
something wholly different from what the older versions
IOO ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE
tell you; they are inaccurate, because they are over¬

literal. How to correct the inaccuracy? This was my first
attempt, made several years ago, when I was new to
the job:
‘I let myself be questioned by men who do not begin
by asking for me; I let myself be found by men who do
not search for me; it is to a nation which never calls on
my name that I say, I am here, I am close at hand. All day
long I spread out my hands to a rebellious people, that
goes astray in following its own devices; a people that is
ever openly defying me.’
I claim, here, some merit for ingenuity. You can read
verse i so as to make it apply, in St. Paul’s way, to the
Gentiles; you can also read it so that it will apply to the
Jews, and lead on naturally to verse 2. The rendering is
accurate, and just intelligible. But what a rendering!
How is anybody going to read through sixty-six chapters
of Isaias, all Englished in so stilted and so pedantic a
fashion? I might ask the printer to make good my short¬
comings:
‘I let myself be questioned

By men who do not begin by asking for me;
I let myself be found
By men who do not search for me’—
no doubt I could sell my shoddy goods with a little

window-dressing like that; Fr. Gruenthaner would be
delighted. But is it worth it?
This is how the passage stands at present:
‘So ready I to answer, and ask they will not; so easy
to be found, and search for me is none! A people that
will not call upon my name; else my own voice should
whisper, I am here, I am close at hand! Outstretched
these hands of mine, all the day long, to a nation of rebels,
FAREWELL TO MACHABEES IOI
straying this way and that as the mood takes them, openly
defying me.’
That is its present form; I do not say, its final form;
nearly all this process of revision has been done in
railway trains. But I hold to it that you have got to do
something oj that kind if you want to let the reader into
the mind of Isaias.
Legentibus, si semper exactus sit sermo, non erit gratus. I
wonder where St. Jerome found that thought-provoking
sentiment to end Machabees with? It is not in the Greek.
Date Due
MAY 1 2 1986
i '
ArK 1 2 1992
V
-M* K j~^4A V
—_
l u ljl |r k wl~ -
--
L J CAT. NO. 23
3 233
__
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
TRENT UNIVERSITY
0 11 64 39
BS455 .K6
Knox, Ronald Arbuthnott

On Englishing the Bible.
ISSUED TO
DATE
.-‘•if*-
85b4&
—
/-} hi Q -?-<£> c( H
85546
pcu L
#:iHW
.JitiV&ii
Ipliiili
ISSliMlil
S.,'.i‘;.'pp
' 'Â
11 tlftlsMMBIBBIBI
J
S§«;
t; sli: >;;• i;»>i; t; »it iti*! t; s: I
• /,,

Ronald A. Knox - On Englishing The Bible-Burns, Oates (1949)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ronald A. Knox - On Englishing The Bible-Burns, Oates (1949)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ronald A. Knox - On Englishing The Bible-Burns, Oates (1949)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 •-7

Digitized by the Internet Archive

AMICUS TOTIUS ORBIS SPATIO DIVISUS

SED NOMINE SED STUDIO

MIRUM QUAM VICINUS

NIHIL OBSTAT: EDVARDVS CAN. MAHONEY, S.T.D.

imprimatvr: e. morrogh Bernard

VICARIVS GENERA LIS

WESTMONASTERII: DIE XXVI FEBRVARII MCMXLIX

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HUNT, BARNARD AND CO., LTD.

FOR BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD.

2 8 ASHLEY PLACE, LONDON, S.W. I

First published 1949

‘Wragg is in custody.’ So ended a newspaper paragraph,

in the sixties of last century, about a case of child-murder

against a parental instinct hardly less ferocious than that

But a further explanation is needed. I may be told that

I Thoughts on Bible Translation i

II Some New Testament Problems 19

III Justice and Scandal in the Gospels 29

IV Challoner and the Douay Version 41

V Some Reasons Why 49

VI Nine Years’ Hard 66

VII Morsu Amarissimo 73

VIII Farewell to Machabees 84

Almost for the first time in my life, I am reading a paper

version, for example, in Acts xvii. 6, has ‘these men who

going back behind the Latin—and I have only done so

which are almost entirely unknown, is a little brochure

their hands again and again’—there is the English of

the New Testament, if you want to decide how an English¬

jocose. It is intolerable, in a modem translation of the

give up toffee during Lent and write the fact down on a

was to resuscitate a more or less obsolete word, ‘right-

well pleased’ wherever it occurs, simply for the sake of

which will give the reader the exact shade of meaning

I fancy, is so subtly disconcerting to the modern reader

Bible a hundred years ago, or even at the time when it

Am I, then, prepared to haul down my colours, and

two others. Much more serious was the problem, what

read out on solemn occasions—St. John’s account of the

SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

‘Transmute boldly: render the sense by the correspond¬

ing sense without troubling over the verbal difficulties in

no use objecting that the Authorized Version is good

Let me commit to paper some of the hesitations which

creating this or that impression in the minds of (you

the Catholic and the Protestant Bible is that the former

annoying, because it is much more common, is the hesi¬

about man-stone being left on his friend. Must we really

footnote says, ‘Because this speech is subject to divers

are not familiar in the sense intended. ‘Just’, for ex¬

of me this night’—you cannot find a single English word

And, talking of that, what is the translator to regard as

JUSTICE AND SCANDAL IN THE

In my essay on ‘Some Problems of Bible Translation’, I

them who believe in him’—you do not begin to under¬

passages in which a just man appears to mean simply a

is more natural to think of pious souls as hungering and