OMISSIONS IN A SINGLE GOSPEL (ST. MATTHEW), OR PASSAGES STILL RETAINED, BUT ACCOMPANIED BY A MARGINAL NOTE IMPLYING DOUBT. (The omissions or passages of implied doubtfulness are in Italics. Only a few instances are given as illustrations.) angry with his brother without a cause." (Omission.) Matthew 66 v. 22. vi. 13. xi. 15. xii. 47. verse." "But when he saw the wind boisterous." (Omission.) 'honour not his father or his mother." (Omission.) xvi. 2-3. "Omitted by some of the most ancient xvii. 21. Verse omitted. xviii. 11. Verse omitted ("for the Son of man came to save that which was lost"). "Many authorities, some ancient, insert" it. xiv. 30. XV. 6. Doxology omitted. "He that hath ears to hear." (Omis sion.) "Some ancient authorities omit the 66 "omitted by some xix. 29. "father, or mother, or wife, or chil dren." (Omission.) "Many ancient authorities insert or wife.'' 66 "heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne." Many ancient authorities omit." xxiii. 4. xix. 9. End of the verse ancient authorities." Matthew xxiii. 14. Verse omitted. "Some ancient autho "Many rities insert" it. "neither the Son" is added. authorities, some ancient, omit" it. is my blood of the new testament." (Omission.) "Many ancient authorities insert it. 99 xxiv. 36. xxvi. 28. "this THE LORD'S PRAYER. Of all the changes made in the text or the translation, none have excited such distrust and condemnation as the omission of the Doxology, and the change of the last petition in the Lord's prayer into "deliver us from the evil one," instead of "deliver us from evil;" and to this question we will now turn as the conclusion of this review. The arguments for and against the change have been put forward at great length, on the one hand, by the Bishop of Durham, who was the principal agent in obtaining the change, and on the other by Canon Cook, the Editor of the Speaker's Commentary; and as the learning and ability of these two distinguished scholars are very equally matched, it is generally admitted that the case has now been pleaded by what may be called two of the most eminent living counsel; and their arguments may be summarised as follows: The entire controversy turns upon the meaning of the two Greek words, "Tou Tovnρou," in the last petition in our Lord's prayer. There is no dispute about the words themselves. The Revised text leaves them unchanged, and the advocates on both sides claim them as favouring their own view. The Rule of Convocation, which was to be binding upon the Revision Committee, was, that nothing was to be changed unless it was necessary for the sake of truth and faithfulness. On the one hand, then, the Bishop of Durham and the majority of the Revisionists say that the balance of evidence is in favour of "from the evil one," therefore truth and faithfulness make it necessary to change the old form into the new one. On the other hand, Canon Cook, the minority of the Revisionists, and others who have taken a part in the discussion, say that there is such conflicting evidence on the matter, and that the evidence in favour of from "evil" simply is so strong, and, as they think, so preponderating, that it was not only not necessary, but it was even wrong, to change the words in the text; although it might be right to put in the margin that there was some evidence in favour of "from the evil one," instead of "from evil." ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CHANGE IN THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OF FROM EVIL INTO "FROM THE EVIL ONE," IN THE LORD'S PRAYER. The Bishop of Durham has published, in the Guardian, September, 1881, the arguments which induced the Revision Committee to adopt the change, and the Rev. Canon Cook, the Editor of the Speaker's Commentary, has published the objections to the change in a "Letter to the Bishop of London," 3rd edit., 1882, and a second Letter, 1882. Their arguments are summarised below. It is acknowledged on all hands that the Greek año тou Tovрou (apo tou ponerou) may mean either "evil" generally or "the evil one" (a person, and masculine), but not necessarily the devil. THE BISHOP OF DURHAM. For "the evil one." ó rovnρos (ho poneros) is used by our Lord himself in the para 1 At one time the preposition arо was considered important, as proving that the desired deliverance was from a person, not a thing; but this ground is now given up, as amo often occurs before a neuter. CANON COOK. For "evil" generally. The parable of the Sower was some time later than the Lord's prayer; and it was in the parable, and not till then, that o πονηρος was specifically used to imply the devil. So far was its meaning in this sense from being self-evident to the disciples, that it had to be explained to them. No doubt it is, but this was long after its employment in the Lord's prayer, and after our Lord had stamped a special meaning upon it; and nearer the time of our Lord than St. John's epistles, St. Paul used the term as implying simply a wicked man-certainly not the devil-in writing to the Corinthians. These quotations are at least three centuries later than the time of our Lord; and the Jews, at the time of his advent, did not attach any such meaning to the word: and while they had a daily prayer for deliverance from evil of all kinds, they had none for deliverance from the devil. The SYRIAC leaves the question unsettled; for the Bishop acknowledges that "Bisho" may be either "evil" or "the evil one," and his own authorities admit the same thing, which is sufficient to show that it was not "necessary," as a matter of 'faithfulness," to change the Lord's prayer and to put "the evil one" into the text of the Revised Version, and remove "evil" into the margin. 66 |
0 Отзывы Google не подтверждает отзывы, однако проверяет данные и удаляет недостоверную информацию. Написать отзыв |