. ii. NOV. 26, m]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
431
Companion for Country Gentlemen.' There
are several editions of the book in this
library, but, so far as I am aware, the
authorship is unknown.
EDWARD M. BORRAJO. The Library, Guildhall, B.C.
NEW TESTAMENT QUERY (9 th S. ii. 188). The Wycliffe-Purvey version (Oxf., 1879) has " till he be do awei," which exactly represent the Vulgate " donee de medio fiat. Tyndale, who is followed by all the later translators, introduced " taken away," only he changed the subject of the verb by the translation " until it be taken." Coverdale's Bible, how- ever, with all the subsequent translations, even the Rhemish, returned to " he." As to the phrase "be taken away," Beza observed that " e/c /xecrov yevcr6a.i, non tantum dicitur de eis quse intereunt, verumetiam de eis quse amoventur, vel quovis modo auferuntur."
Ellicott observes, ad loc., "The phrase K HCO-QV yiyvea-Qai, illustrated by Wetstein and Kypke (' Obs.,' vol. ii. p. 343), indicates the removal of any obstacle, leaving the manner of the removal wholly undefined." So the Grimm-Thayer ' N.T. Lexicon' (Edin., 1892) has simply, without comment, " ytvo^iat CK /xeo-ov, to be taken out of the way, to dis- appear." St. Chrysostom illustrates Tyndale's " it " by taking it of the Roman empire.
Perhaps the translation " disappear " would be most in agreement with MR. POPE'S view, as it is in the Grimm - Thayer 'Lexicon.' "General usage" may be the answer to the query. ED. MARSHALL, F.S.A.
I agree with MR. POPE that the passive rendering given to yei/jjrai is unwarranted; but I dp not see that there is any need of giving it a " middle- voice meaning." Why not render it, as the aorist of this verb usually is rendered, simply by "be '"? " Until he be out of the way leaves it an open question whether the " he " spoken of is to be forcibly removed or to retire voluntarily. R. M. SPENCE, D.D.
Manse of Arbuthnott, N.B.
DOUBTFUL GRAMMAR IN THE A.V. AND IN THE PRAYER BOOK (9 th S. ii. 305). It would seem that VITENI is a little hypercritical on the points of grammar that he mentions, (a) "Than them both " (Proy. xxvii. 3) is rather a Latinism than " a glaring solecism," and is probably due to the Vulgate "ira stulti utroque gravior"; Wiclif's "than either" avoids the difficulty, but the Revisers have apparently accepted the view that "than " has gradually "obtained a prepositional force," as it certainly has in colloquial Eng-
lish; Milton's "than whom" with a compara-
tive is well known, (b) 1 Kings xii. (not xiii.)
27, " shall " is equivalent to " certainly will "
or "are sure to," expressing what is some-
times called " inevitable futurity," as in verse
26, " Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall
the kingdom return to the house of David,"
i.e., "the kingdom will surely return"; there
is no desire or "act of volition" expressed,
(c) " Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these
three," is often explained as an archaism,
"abideth" being the archaic third person
Elural, and it is undoubted that that archaic >rm lingered on into the sixteenth century as late as Tyndale, from whom the phrase came. But it may be simply explained as a singular predicate agreeing with the first subject, and understood with the others,, which, in fact, is the idiom of the original Greek here, /*ev Trams, eXiris, aydirr)' and it is curious to note that Beza changed the " manent fides, spes, caritas " of the Vulgate into "manet." (d) The awkward "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? " must be admitted to be "bad grammar," and the Revisers have corrected the phrase. But it is easy to see that the influence of the Latin " Quern dicunt homines esse Filium hominis " is responsible, the first part being, if taken alone, rightly rendered "Whom say men," and the second part being rightly rendered " that I the Son of man am," by Tyndale, to avoid the more awkward though correct Wicliffite rendering "to be mannes Son." The two rightly rendered parts make, when combined, a piece of incorrect English gram- mar, but all the great English versions followed Tyndale. (e) It is difficult to see what is to be found fault with in the phrase "for Thy dear Son's sake, Jesus Christ our Lord." Byron wrote, " for the queen's sake, his sister"; Shakespeare wrote, "It is Othello's pleasure, our noble and valiant general "; and plenty of like instances may be given. The cases quoted are not "simply glaring solecisms "; they are rather "instances to be explained by historical grammar."
O. W. TANCOCK Little Waltham.
Robert Lowth in his 'Introduction to English Grammar,' 1772, p. 183, brings several instances from English writers into connexion with Prov. xxvii. 3, which he cites :
"You are a much greater loser than me by his death." Swift to Pope, Letter 63.
"He suffers hourly more than me. owitt to Stella.
"Who were obliged to the same proportion more than us." Swift, 'Conduct of the Allies.'
