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

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

Matthew

v. 22.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

XV.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cause." (Omission.)

Doxology omitted.

"He that hath ears to hear." (Omis

sion.)

"Some ancient authorities omit the

verse."

"But when he saw the wind boister

ous." (Omission.)

6. "honour not his father or his mother." (Omission.)

xvi. 2-3. "Omitted by some of the most ancient and other important authorities." xvi. 13. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Omission.)

xvii. 21. Verse omitted. "Many authorities, some ancient, insert" it.

xviii. 11. Verse omitted (" for the Son of man came to save that which was lost"). "Many authorities, some ancient, insert" it.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ancient authorities."

xix. 29. "father, or mother, or wife, or children." (Omission.) "Many ancient authorities insert or wife.""

xxiii. 4.

"heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne." "Many ancient authorities omit."

Matthew xxiii. 14. Verse omitted. "Some ancient autho

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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 Tovnрou," 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 anо TOU πоνηрoν (apo tou ponerou) may mean either "evil" generally or the evil one' (a person, and masculine), but not necessarily the devil.

[ocr errors]

At one time the preposition anо was considered important, as proving that the desired deliverance was from a person, not a thing; but this ground is now given up, as anо often occurs before a neuter.

THE BISHOP OF DURHAM.

For the evil one."

ó movηpos (ho poneros) is used by our Lord himself in the para

CANON COOK.

For "evil" generally.

The parable of the Sower was some time later than the Lord's

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The SYRIAC version is of very ancient date, almost cotemporary with the last of the Apostles, and was probably written in Aramaic, the same language in which our Lord himself spoke. This version favours" the evil one," for the Greek is translated into "Bish-o" (evilthe), which is so constantly used in Syriac for "the devil" (although it may mean "evil" generally), that there is no reason to doubt that another

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.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »