Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Irish, Bedell's.

EnglishAuth V. 1640.

compared with the Greek and Diodati's Italn.

Tamil, or Malabaric. Greek.

Hebrew, Delitzch, Greek. Greenfield.

whatever evil.

do mal," from evil.

"di rhae drwc,'

ni rhag drwg," evil. "No possibility of ma

[ocr errors][merged small]

evil,

66

any badness,"

not " the evil one."Mr. O'Loghlin.

1840."timen""fault, sin, mis

chief, harm, injury."— R. Rost, Esq., Library, India Office.

horong, "evil in the abstract. When used in the masculine sense, it never means the evil one (the devil), but the evil person."Rev. Dr. Stern, Minister of the Synagogue, Hope Place, Liver

pool.

The internal evidence seems strongly to favour “evil” generally, for all the petitions are general and impersonal :

Our Father, thy name be hallowed,

thy kingdom come,

thy will be done,

our trespasses forgive us.

into temptation (trial) lead us not. (πειρασμον)

our daily bread give us, from evil deliver us.

But if the petition is read, "deliver us from the devil ("the evil one"), it is at variance with the character of the rest of the prayer in its personal and limited application: for while "evil" includes the author of evil as well as his works, there are many "evils," such as sickness, accidents, and the like, from which we are taught to pray for deliverance, that cannot be considered as being the works of the devil.

If, then, the Jews who originally heard the prayer "could not think for a moment of the devil" when told to pray for deliverance from evil; if the Greek itself is indefinite, and the nearest approach to the original language (the Syriac) is indefinite also; if one Egyptian version is definitely masculine while the other is claimed as definitely neuter, or is acknowledged to be indefinite; and if all the ancient versions favour evil generally or are indefinite, except the Arabic, which "is of the slightest possible critical value," and the Slavonic, which is of the tenth century; if all the authoritative catechetical explanations, both eastern and western, ancient and modern, teach that the prayer means deliverance from evil of all kinds; and the modern versions, with scarcely an exception, translate the Greek into "evil" or "the evil," but not "the evil one"; and if the translation of this petition into the limited, personal "evil one" is at variance with the whole character of the rest of the prayer, the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of the original translation, "evil" generally, and against "the

evil one," which has been substituted in the Revised Version of the Lord's Prayer.

CONCLUSION.

The general result of our review of the Revised Version is the following:

That many of the long-acknowledged faults or defects in the Authorised Version have been corrected, and the translation in the Revised Version has now been brought into more accurate harmony with the original, the force and meaning of which are rendered more clear by the changes in many places, and liability to misconception is removed in others.

That the extreme literalness of the Revised Version will be a valuable help to students of the New Testament, while at the same time it has involved numerous changes and departures from English idiom that are much to be regretted; for the excessive number of changes made, as the result of this extreme literalness, and of rules self-imposed by the Revisionists, have not been called for by "faithfulness" or 66 necessity" in the sense of the instructions given by Convocation, and are likely to prejudice the reader and operate against the acceptance of the Revised Version as a substitute for the Authorised Version.

That the numerous changes in the Greek text, sometimes noted, but more frequently adopted into the Revised Version without notice, and the doubt thrown by marginal notes upon other portions which are still retained unaltered, are much to be regretted in a work like the New Testament, which is placed before learned and unlearned readers alike, without any means being supplied for solving their doubts; and the question has still to be settled, whether in accepting the testimony of and B as practically conclusive of the text, the Revisers have adopted the most faithful witnesses to the sacred words or only the oldest MSS. at present known.

But that, in spite of all the alterations called for by carping criticism, by anxious, loving care, by passing theories of interpretation, or by simple solicitude for critical accuracy, the New Testament is substantially unchanged in vital particulars; and if, for example, a Mahomedan, a Parsee, or a follower of Confucius or Buddha should desire to learn for himself what Christianity is from its own sacred books, it would be practically immaterial whether the Authorised or the Revised Version was placed in his hands. In both alike he would find the same Christ, and from either of them he would learn the same ground for the Christian's hopes, and the same rules for the Christian's conduct.

ON INDIVIDUAL VARIATION AMONG

ASCIDIANS.

By W. A. HERDMAN, D.Sc., F.L.S.,

PROFESSOR OF NATURAL HISTORY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,

LIVERPOOL.

THE specific determination of Ascidians has always been found a matter of considerable difficulty, on account of the apparent absence of reliable characteristics in many of the so-called species.

Most of the older descriptions in which only the external appearance is taken into consideration are useless, owing to the great effect which surrounding circumstances have upon the shape of an Ascidian; while even now, when we describe minutely the structure of all the more important internal organs, in some cases it seems almost impossible to find good specific characters, and to discriminate between species and varieties. The cause of this is the great amount of individual variation-the considerable difference in the anatomy of individuals admitted to belong to the same "species." My attention was first drawn to this point when I began to examine critically the "Challenger" collection of Tunicata, and I soon perceived the necessity of satisfying myself, as far as possible, as to the relative values of the specific characters generally made use of, and as to the extent of individual variation. In order to determine these points, I examined a large number of specimens of several of our common British Ascidians, and the results of part of my investigations have already been published. A first paper, read before the Royal

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »