The verse is: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."
2007-09-06 05:31:21 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
I do not believe looking at the King James Version itself will supply the answer, since the KJV is here following Tyndale's (1534) translation, which reads as follows:
"He that doeth evyl let him do evyl still: and he which is fylthy let him be fylthy still: and he that is righteous let him be more righteous: and he that is holy let him be more holy."
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+22:11&t=tyn&sr=1&l=en
"That" and "which" as relative pronouns are pretty much interchangeable in the English of Tyndale and those who built on his work, though "that" is much more common. There is no particular distinction in the meaning of the clauses that suggests a reason for the variation. MAYBE it was just for the sake of STYLISTIC variation.
I did find ONE discussion of these relative pronouns (at least the first page of one!) which argues that by the time of the KJV (also Tyndale? I'm not sure) the normal pattern was "which" with nouns, "that" with pronouns.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-049X(190404%2F09)43%3A177%3C278%3ATHUOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
Of course, that would mean you would expect "that" in this verse (as opposed to "which" for a noun in "Our Father, WHICH art in heaven"). But it still leaves the one case of "which" unexplained.
2007-09-06 12:54:21 · answer #1 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is only a guess, but I would say that unjust, righteous and holy are all qualities of spirit, indicating that the "he" in question is acting a certain way. Filthy, on the other hand, is appropriately used for objects. "Which" is (currently) used for objects, whereas "that" may be used for people (although currently isn't normally used for subjects who are people).
2007-09-06 12:49:41 · answer #2 · answered by Goddess of Grammar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, you are using the King James Version translation--which, grammatically speaking, is out of date, dating from the early 17th century. Use a more recent translation, and it will not be a problem for you.
2007-09-06 12:40:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no clue, but I am facinated by a "holy still." Is that where holy water comes from or does it produce something stronger.
2007-09-06 12:36:23 · answer #4 · answered by ghouly05 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋