16. The use of whom for who, as the predicate nominative. Mat. xvi, 13, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?-Campbell, Newcome, Webster, and Norton, who. So Mat. xvi, 15; Luke ix, 18; Acts xiii, 25. This construction had descended from Wiclif. 17. The use of the relative pronoun which, in reference to persons. Mat. vi, 9, Our Father which art in heaven. So Luke xi, 12.-Webster, who. Acts xiii, 7, Which was with the deputy of the country.-Webster, who. There is nothing in the etymological import of this relative, which forbids its reference to persons. The propriety of applying it to persons was, however, a matter of discussion, even in the days of Addison See the Spectator, No. 78. 18. The use of which for that, after the adjective same. 2 Cor. ii, 2, The same which is made sorry by me.-Wakefield, he that; Newcome, he that; Webster, the same who. Phil. i, 30, Having the same conflict which ye saw in me.-Newcome and Webster, no change. This construction had descended from Wiclif. Our translators use the same that, Eph. iii, 10. 19. The use of the relative pronoun which with the definite article preceding. Ezek. xx, 28, For the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to them.-Webster, for which. Luke xxi, 6, In the which there shall not be left one stone upon another.Webster, in which. Acts xxvi, 16, Those things in the which I will appear unto thee.-Webster, in which. Col iii, 7, In the which ye also walked sometime.-Webster, in which. James ii, 7, That worthy name by the which ye are called.-Webster, no change. There is nothing in the etymological import of this relative, which forbids the use of the article; comp. Fr. lequel. It is quite common in Old English, but is now obsolete. 20. The use of that for what or that which. Mat. xx, 14, Take that thine is. Campbell, Newcome, and Norton, what; Webster, that which. The Common Version here follows Cranmer and the Rhemish version. John iii, 11, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.-Wakefield and Campbell, what; Newcome, that which; Webster and Norton, what. The Common Version here follows Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version. 21. The use of whatsoever for whatever. Mat. xx, 4, Whatsoever is right I will give you. Add Mat. xx, 7; xxi, 22, et passim; Wakefield, Campbell and Newcome, whatsoever and whatever; Webster and Norton, whatever. This form had descended to our translators from Tyndale; but is now nearly obsolete. It is remarkable that Wiclif has whatever. 22. The use of whether for which, in reference to two. Mat. xxi, 31, Whether of them twain did the will of his father?-Campbell, Newcome, Webster, Wakefield, and Norton, which of the two. So Mat. xxvii, 21. Mat. xxiii, 17, Whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, Webster, and Norton, which. So Mat. xxiii, 19. This rendering had descended from Tyndale. 23. The use of wherefore for why. 2 Sam. xii, 23, Wherefore should I fast? Add Ex. v, 22; 2 Sam. xvi, 10; Job xxi, 7; Mal. ii, 15.-Webster, why. Mat. xiv, 31, Wherefore didst thou doubt? Add Mat. xxvi, 50.—Campbell and Newcome, wherefore; Webster and Norton, why. This usage had descended to our translators from Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version, all having wherfore. It is remarkable that Wiclif has whi. 24. The use of how that for the conjunction that. 1 Cor. x, 1, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud. 1 Cor. xv, 3, That which I also received, how that Christ died. James ii, 24, Ye see then how that by works a man is justified.—Wakefield, Newcome, and Webster, in all these cases, use that. This construction had descended to our translators from Tyndale. 25. The use of certain forms of the past tense of verbs, brake, spake, bare, tare, ware; slang, stank; sware; chode; clave (to split); crew; obsolete or obsoles cent; for the now usual forms, broke, spoke, bore, tore, wore ; slung, stunk; swore, chid; cleft; crowed. These biblical forms are the original and more ancient, as may be seen by comparing the earlier versions, see The English Hexapla, Lond. 1841; or by comparing the forms in the kindred dialects, see English Conjugation in Barnard's American Journal of Education, March, 1857. 26. The use of certain forms of the past participle, drunken, holpen, molten ; holden; obsolete or obsolescent; for the now usual forms, drank, helped, melted; held. These biblical forms are the original and more ancient, see English Hezaplo, and American Journal of Education, as above. 27. The use of one tense for another. (1.) The use of the form loved for was loving. John xiii, 3, Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God.-Wakefield, was going; Camp bell, was returning; Newcome, Webster, and Norton, was going. This construction had descended from Tyndale. (2.) The use of the form loved for love in the subjunctive. Luke xvi, 30, And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.-Wakefield and Newcome, go; Webster, skall go. Luke xvi, 31, And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.-Wakefield, rise; Campbell, should arise; Newcome, rise; Webster, shall rise; Norton, rise. The early versions vacillate between these two constructions. (3.) The use of the form might love for may love. Mark x, 51, Lord, that I might receive my sight.-Newcome and Webster, may. Luke viii, 9, What might this parable be?—Newcome, may. John v, 40, And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, and Webster, may. John x, 10, I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, and Webster, may. John xvii, 3, And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God.-Wakefield, Newcome, and Webster, may. Phil. iii, 11, If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.-Wakefield, may; Newcome, no change; Webster, may. Heb. x, 36, That, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.-Newcome, Stuart, and Webster, may. This construction had descended to our translators from Tyndale. (4.) The use of the form have loved for loved. Ps. lxvi, 14, Which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble.-Webster, no change. More correctly, uttered-spoke. (5.) The use of the form had been for was. Mark vi, 49, But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit.-Campbell, Newcome, Webster, (in his pamphlet,) and Nor ton, was. This construction had descended from Tyndale.-The Rhemish version has was. 6.) The use of the form was for had been. Luke vii, 15, And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak.-Campbell and Newcome, had been; Webster, no change. This construction had descended from Cranmer. (7.) The use of the form love for have loved. Mat. xv, 32, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days.-Wakefield, have continued; Campbell, have attended; Newcome and Scrivener, have continued; Webster, no change; Norton, have remained.-Comp. Mark viii, 2, in Common Version. The early versions vacillate between these two constructions. (8.) The use of the form loved for have loved. 1 John v, 15, We know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.Wakefield, asked; Newcome, ask; Webster, no change; more correctly, have desired, as in the Geneva version. 28. The use of the completed present or past for the simple present or past. (1.) The use of the form might have loved for might love. Philem. 13, Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel.-Wakefield, might be a minister; Newcome, no change; Webster, (in his pamphlet,) might minister. This construction had descended from Tyndale. (2.) The use of the form would have loved for would love. Acts xxii, 30, On the morrow because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews.-Webster, no change; more correctly, would know, as in Wiclif. This construction, occasioned by the use of a preteritive verb in Greek, had descended to our translators from Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version. (3.) The use of the form should have loved for should love. Mat. xx, 10, They supposed that they should have received more.-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, Webster, and Norton, should. The earlier translations vacillate between these two constructions. (4.) The use of the form should have been loved for should be loved. Acts v, 26, For they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.Newcome, no change; Webster, (in his pamphlet,) should be. Acts xxiii, 10, The chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down.-Wakefield, would be; Newcome, would be; Webster, would have been, but in his pamphlet, should be. This construction had descended from Tyndale.-Wiclif and the Rhemish version, should be. (5.) The use of the form to have loved for to love. 1 Thess. ii, 8, We were willing to have imparted unto you not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls.-Wakefield, to impart; Newcome, we are willing to bestow; Webster, (in his pamphlet,) to impart. This construction had descended from Tyndale. 29. The use of the forms, I be, thou be, he be, we be, ye be, they be, in certain cases, in which contingency and futurity are not united. (1.) In a leading clause, which is neither contingent nor future. Deut. x, 5, And there they be, as the Lord commanded me.-Webster, are. Mat. vii, 13, Many there be which go in thereat.-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, Webster, and Norton, are. (2.) In a relative clause, (introduced by which, what, that, where, when,) which is neither contingent nor future. 2 Kings vi, 16, They that be with us.- -Webster, are. Is. xli, 22, Let them show the former things, what they be.-Webster, are. Jer. xxxvi, 19, Let no man know where ye be.-Webster and Noyes, are. Mat. xvi, 23, The things which be of God.-Webster, are. Rom. iv, 17, Who calleth those things which be not.-Wakefield, Newcome, and Webster, are. Gal. iii, 9, They which be of faith.-Newcome and Webster, are. 1 Thes. v, 7, They that be drunken.-Newcome and Webster, are. (3.) In a modal clause, (after as,) which is neither contingent nor future. 2 Kings vii, 12, They know that we be hungry.-Webster, are. Mat. iv, 3, If thou be the son of God.-Campbell and Newcome, no change; (7.) In a restrictive clause, (after except, unless,) when contingent, but not future. Am. iii, 3, Except they be agreed.-Webster, are. 2 Cor. xiii, 5, Except ye be reprobates.—Wakefield, are; Newcome, no change; Webster, are. (8) In a concessive clause, (after although, though,) when contingent, but not future. 1 2 Sam. xxiii, 5, Although my house be not so with God.-Webster, is. Acts xvii, 27, Though he be not far from every one of us.-Newcome, no change; Webster, is. (9.) In a suspensive clause, (after whether,) when contingent, but not future. 1 Kings xx, 18. Whether they be come out for peace.-Webster, have. John vii, 17, Whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.—Wakefield, be; Campbell and Newcome, no change; Webster and Norton, is. The use of this form is still properly retained (1.) in the terminal clause, when both future and contingent, Ezra x, 14; Jer. xlvii, 6; Dan. xii, 13; Luke xii, 50. (2.) In a conditional clause, when both contingent and future, Hos. viii, 7. (3.) In a restrictive clause, when both contingent and future, Rom. x, 15. (4.) In a concessive clause, when both contingent and future, Lev. xxv, 35; Hab. 1, 5. (5.) In a final clause, (after that, lest,) which of course is both future and contingent, Gen. xi, 4; Deut. xv, 9; Mat. xxv, 9. (6.) In an indefinite clause, (after whosoever, whatsoever,) which of course is both contingent and future, Gal. v, 10; Rev. xviii, 22. Nothing can be determined, in regard to the extent of the subjunctive mood in the Common Version, from the use of the forms, I be, thou be, he be, etc., for there existed both in Anglo-Saxon and in Old English, two forms of the substantive verb in the present tense indicative, namely, I am and I be, each of which had its corresponding subjunctive. See Priestley's English Grammar, p. 112. 30. The use of the forms, I were, thou wert, he were, we were, ye were, they were, in certain cases where they appear now not to be used. (1.) In a relative clause, (after where,) which is neither contingent nor future. John xi, 57, If any man knew where he were.-Wakefield, Campbell, Newcome, Webster, and Norton, was. (2.) In a suspensive clause, (after whether,) which is contingent, but not future. Luke iii, 15, Whether he were the Christ or not.-Wakefield, were; Newcome, were; Webster, was; Norton, were. 1 Cor. xv, 11, Whether it were I or they.-Newcome, were; Webster, was. The use of this tense is still properly retained (1.) in a conditional clause, Mat. xxiv, 24; Luke vii, 39; John ix, 33; xviii, 30. (2.) In a restrictive clause, John vi, 65; xix, 11. (3.) In a concessive clause, 1 Sam. xxi, 5; John xi, 25. (4.) In a modal clause, Luke xxii, 44. (5.) In an optative clause, Deut. 5, 29; Job xxix, 2; Cant. viii, 1; Rev. iii, 15. Nothing can be determined, in regard to the extent of the subjunctive mood in the Common Version of the Bible, from the use of the forms, I were, thou wert, he were, etc., because these forms were once used in the indicative, as well as in the subjunctive. See Lowth's Eng. Gram., p. 32. 31. The use of the subjunctive in ordinary verbs. 1 Sam. ix, 13, Before he go up.-Webster, goeth. 1 Sam. ix, 13, Until he come.-Webster, cometh. Ex. xxi, 12, So that he die.-Webster, dieth. There is now evidently a tendency to narrow down the use of the subjunctive, by employing the indicative in some cases, and by supplying the auxiliary shall in others. The English subjunctive is going fast into desuetude. Whether this natural progress of things should be resisted, or aided on by grammarians, we shall leave for others to judge. |