ePub 版


not in a dish? Would any housewife ask for a charger, if she wanted a dish or a plate? It was necessary that obsolete words should be expunged, and our Revisers have met that necessity, but to some that were dying they have unnecessarily given a new lease of life.

We argued the necessity of a revision from the narrow basis on which the authorised version rests. Being narrow, it has allowed some words and verses to find a place in our Scriptures that never came from the pens of the Apostles. The ample materials at the command of our Revisers have enabled them to subject both words and letters to a critical examination before giving them a place in the sacred text. Some words and verses have failed to vindicate their claim to a place, consequently they have ceased to be Scripture. This is notably the case with John v. 4, which tells us that an angel troubled the waters of Bethesda and imparted medicinal properties to them. Thoughtful men have long had a difficulty in believing this

In the Scriptures we often read of angels being commissioned to this world to deliver some message or perform some act; but when the message has been delivered, or the act performed, the angel has withdrawn from the scene. Here, on the contrary, we have an angel making periodical visits; and that contrariety is enough to excite suspicion. The verse probably originated as a marginal reading, to account for the healing properties of the spring; and a subsequent copyist transferred it from the margin to the text. We try to trace effects to their cause; but, as a rule, we find them in nature. It is on natural grounds that we account for the healing properties of the mineral springs at Harrogate and other places. Fourteen centuries ago men were equally as anxious as we are to know the causes of things, and if they failed to find them in nature they sought them in the supernatural. Men succeed admirably so long as they direct their attention to nature; but, when they attempt to traverse supernatural regions, they generally lose themselves, except the light of Revelation shine upon their path. In this case an angel was brought from heaven to do what we know a little sulphur and water will do! Whatever credit may be due to the scribe for his discovery, we must say that it is not very complimentary to the angel.

If the scholarly men who gave us the version of 1611 had any misgivings respecting the genuineness of this verse, the narrow basis on which their text rested gave them no authority to delete it. But the Revisers, with ample materials at their command, have found the verse wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts of the fourth century, and in those of Ephraim and Beza of the fifth and sixth. It is only found in the Vulgate and some of the writings of the Fathers, and so the Revisers have justly expunged it. We rejoice that the verse has gone, though it has taken the periodical visits of an angel with it.

The famous passage on the heavenly witnesses,' found in 1 John v. 7-8, has also been deleted. The principal authorities for these verses are the Vulgate and the writings of Vigilius and Fulgentius, African Fathers of the fifth century. Erasmus did not insert them in the first and second editions of his Testament; and they would never have had a place in our authorised version had it not been for the opposition of the monks to Erasmus and for his intense desire for peace. They were afraid of the keys of knowledge passing out of the hands of the Church ; and when his Testament appeared, they charged him with mutilating Scripture and correcting the Holy Ghost, and, in proof of their assertions, pointed to the omission of these verses. Erasmus, to satisfy his opponents and get peace, promised that if these verses could be found in a single Greek manuscript he would insert them in his next edition. Such a manuscript was found in Britain, and Erasmus was true to his word ; consequently the verses found their way into our authorised version. It is now generally admitted that the verses were translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, for they are not found in any ancient Greek manuscript, and they are not quoted in the great Arian controversy (325) to prove the Deity of Christ, as they undoubtedly would have been, if they had formed part of the sacred text.

But if our Revisers have deleted verses they have not done so without a sufficient reason. In the Gospel according to John vii. 53, viii. 11, we have the graphic and touching account of the woman taken in adultery. There is weighty evidence against the genuineness of this passage, for it is not found in the Codicês Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrimus, Ephraemi, &c., nor in 33—the queen of the cursives.' Eleven cursives place it at the end of the Gospel, and four after the twentyfirst chapter of Luke. Several of the Fathers do not refer to it, and the style is different from that of John, for there are words and expressions in it that are not found elsewhere in his writings. On the other hand, the selection is found in the Codex Bezae of the sixth century, though in a different form, and in codices that belong to the seventh, ninth, and tenth centuries. It is also found in more than 300 cursives, and in the Latin Vulgate. Jerome and Augustine both knew of it, and the latter warmly defended it. With such an array of evidence for and against the passage our Revisers have not deleted it, nor allowed it to remain an unquestioned part of the text, as it does in the authorised version, but like honest men have enclosed it in brackets. Doubtless the men who gave us the version of 1611 would have done the same if they had heard the powerful evidence there is against it. As the section now stands it shows that there was need for a revision, and that the Revisers have here faithfully used the materials at their disposal.

The Lord's Prayer is a portion of Scripture with which we have been familiar from childhood, and in the new version it is greatly altered. We have no pleasure in making that prayer a battle-field; still, we must know whether the alterations can be justified or not. The words, * For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, have been deleted. They are not found in most of the best manuscripts -especially the Vatican and that of Beza. Origen, in the third century, the great father of biblical criticism, and Cyril, in the fifth, wrote expositions of the Lord's Prayer, and both omit the doxology. On the other hand, Chrysostom, in the fourth century, expounds it. The weight of evidence, however, seems to be against its genuineness, so our Revisers have justly deleted it. Probably it formed part of the liturgy of the early church, and being sanctified by usage found its way into the sacred text.

But why has the petition, deliver us from evil,' been changed into deliver us from the evil one'? The original is fully translated by

deliver us from the evil ;' then why insert one, though it be in italics? Is it because evil is an adjective in the original and must qualify a noun ? To this we reply that in Greek, as in English, there are adjectives that can be used as nouns ; so in every place it is not necessary to supply the noun, and it is not here. Besides, the adjective in the Greek can be either masculine or neuter, and as there is nothing in the context that points to a masculine noun we are sorry that our Revisers have supplied one. Those who do not believe in a personal devil cannot conscientiously use the revised form of the Lord's Prayer, and those who do delieve in the personality of such a being will think it soon enough to pray to be delivered from his grasp when he has got hold of them. As that petition now stands it is inappropriate to both classes. But evil has taken hold of every man; and if he be cleansed it still invades the avenues of his soul, so both saint and sinner can pray, deliver us from evil.'

Before closing this paper we will notice a few of the many felicitous renderings that the Revisers have given us. In John xiii. 10. tbe authorised version reads, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet. The new version reads, 'He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet,' for they only would gather dust as he stepped from the bath.

In 2 Timothy iv. 14, the authorised version makes Paul say, “ Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his work. Such an imprecation is not in harmony with the spirit of the Master and His teachings, as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount. Nor does it harmonise with the teachings of Paul himself. We are glad, therefore, that the Revisers have cleared Paul from the charges of vindictiveness and inconsistency, for that verse now reads,

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord will render to him according to his work.'

In the authorised version, Heb. xi 13. reads, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them.' If they had not received the promises, how could they embrace them ? Physically, we cannot embrace a person at a distance, and, mentally, we cannot embrace a proposition unless we receive it. The words, “and were persuaded of them, seem to lead up to the sentence, and embraced them;' but they ought not to be in the text, so our Revisers have deleted them. They have given us an admirable rendering of the verse in question : These all died in faith, not having received the promlses, but having seen them and greeted them from afar. When Xenophon and the remains of his brave 10,000 were retreating from the far East to the land of their fathers, for nearly five long months they marched through winding valleys and dangerous mountain gorges, battling with the fierce tempests of heaven and the fiercer inhabitants of the countries through which they passed, till at length, from the summit of a wild mountain, they saw the waters of the Euxine gleaming before them, and knowing that they were nearing home, and wife, and childthey greeted those waters from afar, and cried, “The sea ! the sea!' That is how it was with the illustrious dead referred to in this verse. They had not received the promises, but, having risen to Alpine regions of thought, and feeling, and faith, they looked into the dim future, apd, seeing the announcements of salvation that would be made, they greeted them from afar.

We present these as specimens of a host of happy renderings that our Revisers have given us. Of the two versions now in our language, we think that the new one is unquestionably the better translation. We respect the old one for what it has done, and we welcome the new one because of its faithfulness to the original. Some critics have said that the new version lacks the rhythm and classic beauty of the old


Was it the aim of the Revisers to give us an English classic or a translation of the Scriptures? We protest against men being condemned for not giving us one kind of work when their primary aim was to give us another kind. They aimed at giving us a faithful translation, and have succeeded admirably.

The scholarly preface to the new version, the numerous marginal readings, and the suggestions of our American friends help to enhance its value. We hope that it will lead men to give increased attention to what is revealed. For in this day, when standards of faith are questioned, and creeds, like institutions, are called upon to vindicate their right to live, it is well for men to listen to the words of the Master and the expositions of His inspired Apostles.

GEORGE PARKIN, M.A., B.D. (Glasgow.)

« 上一頁繼續 »