« ZurückWeiter »
much the same position as the invocation, but here S. Cyril as well as Origen inform us that it was not in the prayer according to S. Luke. The marginal rendering of inloVolov in both Gospels is curious, but perhaps the Revisers regarded the Paternoster as only intended for a morning prayer! At any rate the "supersubstantialem” rendering would seem to have as much to be said for it.
The “Be not anxious for the morrow,” of vi. 34, has an ambiguity about it from which at any rate the Authorised Version is free; nor do I see the great advantage which “birds of the heaven” presents as compared with “fowls of the air."
On the other hand there are unquestionably some very great improvements. Such for instance is the change of "take no thought” into “ Be not anxious,” though, as I have pointed out, that rendering has in one instance led to an ambiguity in the Version which does not exist in the original, and which might have been avoided had the Revisers kept for the verb to the same rendering which they have adopted for the substantive. In the exposition of the Parable of the Sower, xiii. 22, they have kept “ the care” of this world, for n mépouva του αιώνος τούτου; and they might have rendered μη μεριμνάτε by “be not careful,” which would have been quite as comprehensible as “ be not anxious," and would have avoided the ambiguity referred to, as would also the translation of eis as
- about” or
concerning.” The rendering “anxious” is, however, a very striking gain in Phil. iv. 6, where some will perhaps agree with me in thinking that a yet greater advantage would have been gained had the Revisers been bold enough to give its true meaning to evxaplotia, and so give a signification to a passage which, as it stands, seems almost devoid of meaning. We do not make our requests known by thanksgiving, but we do by prayer and supplication joined to the Eucharist.
Another marked improvement is the change to “it was said to them of old time.” The statement of the Authorized Version is scarcely reconcilable with the account of the giving of the Decalogue to Israel in the Book of the Exodus, where the Ten Words are ascribed to God Himself, but the regarding the dative as of the object instead of the agent, entirely removes this difficulty.
The "one mile” of v. 41 is another improvement, bringing out the principle involved, as well as rendering the Greek exactly. Similarly is the case of the last verse of Chapter vii., where the new rendering “ their scribes” is very happy. And this last word reminds me that in old school days when one was in a difficulty about a word by which to translate a Greek or Latin particle," haply" used to be very convenient; but one hardly expected to find it gravely used by such a notable assembly of scholars, and passing seven revisions of their work, as a translation of the familiar toté, and that when its use as a note of time is by no means inadmissible, as in the well-known precept, vii. 6, which was the basis of the Disciplina arcani, or Doctrine of Reserve; nor do I find any justification of this rendering in Madvig's Syntax.
One naturally regrets the loss of the Doxology at the end of the LORD's Prayer; but the Revisers, it must be confessed, were right in omitting it, since it would appear, on Tischendorf's authority, to have crept into the text, (and that not of the oldest MSS.,) from the Liturgies, and not vice versá as we might have expected. With this corresponds the fact that in the chief Liturgies of the East the Doxology occurs either, as in S. Chrysostom’s and S. Basil's, as a response made by the Priest to the Pater said by the people, or, as in those of S. Mark, S. James, or Malabar, as a conclusion to the Embolismus or farsura of the last petition which the Priest says when the people have finished the prayer.' The Sarum Rite, and I think the Roman agrees with it, concludes the Embolismus" after the usual manner of a collect.
I have dwelt at some length upon the changes made in the Sermon on the Mount, because the best way to arrive at a correct first impression of a work is to examine a long and definite passage in it rather than an isolated reading here and there. But now I would briefly notice one or two other passages, and notably Eucharistic ones, in which, as I believe, the Revisers have failed to remove certain very conspicuous blemishes of the Authorised Version.
First of all I will take the crucial word åvá uvnois. This is a word which occurs but three times in the New Testament, twice in reference to the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, and the third time in Hebrews x. 3. In this place there is no manner of doubt as to the reference, which is to the solemn Sacrificial Memorial of the Great
The “Embolismus," of course, varies in its form in each of the Liturgies, and so does the Doxology. S. Mark's has only “Thine is the kingdom and the power. Amen." Those of S. James, S. Chrysostom, and S. Basil add “The FATHER, the Son, and the HOLY GHOST" to this Doxology, as to those with which in the two latter every prayer is concluded. That of Malabar adds to our Doxology the words “the Empire and the Might in heaven and earth.”
Day of Atonement. In all three places the Authorised Version translates it by the ambiguous word " remembrance;" ambiguous, because it may be either subjective or objective, while to us moderns at any rate it certainly suggests the subjective meaning. Now in the last mentioned
passage there can be no manner of question as to the reference, which is evidently to a solemn objective sacrificial commemoration before God, not a mere subjective calling to mind on the part of men ; and this fixes its meaning in the other places, and is borne out by the use of the word in the Septuagint Version. But though the context here renders the meaning clear beyond dispute, yet the translation is to be regretted, inasmuch as in the other two places, where it is coupled with an erroneous translation of a preposition, and an at least doubtful one of a verb, it inevitably suggests to the mind an altogether insufficient conception of the Eucharistic Action : a false inference which would have been impossible had the ambiguous term “ brance” been abandoned in favour of the purely objective word “ morial,” which is what åvauvnous really implies.
But the Revisers, perhaps owing to the Nonconformist Protestant element in the constitution of their company, have ruled that faithfulness or accuracy did not require any alteration, and have kept the ambiguous rendering without even the marginal (improved) alternative which the Authorized Version does give us.
Another instance of curious baldness in the translation is the rendering of the participles in the ambiguous way which leaves it doubtful whether they are present or past, while suggesting the latter, and so obscuring the teaching of the accounts of the Institution given by S. Luke and S. Paul-in S. Paul leaving out the sacrificial words from the text--which teaching is clearly enough that the actions in the Supper Room in Gethsemane and on Calvary are but steps in one great whole, and that the Sacrifice which consummated the Atonement was in course of offering throughout them all, and not as is so often maintained, on the Cross alone.
The last point I shall notice is the unfortunate rendering of els tò Ôinverés, with the Authorised Version, as " for ever,” a rendering which implies a single action complete and done with-which is very far from the true sense of the words. They occur four times in the Epistle to the Hebrews, viz., chap. vii. 3, x. 1, x. 12, and x. 14. In the first two of these passages the context removes ambiguity, and in both the Authorised and Revised Version the rendering is "
tinually," which is very nearly the accurate rendering, and was probably quite so in A.D. 1611, though at the present day “continuously" would better express the meaning-but in x. 12 and 14 this rendering is abandoned in favour of " for ever,” and in this also the revision has agreed with the Authorised Version.
A glance at the two earlier passages will show that the expression is to be construed with what precedes, not with what follows: and certainly if words mean anything it expresses continuousness.
There is another ambiguity in verse 14, of which I took passing notice in an earlier part of this paper,-it is the translation of toùs åryraçquévous by " them that are sanctified,” which the Revisers have retained. It gives a clear enough impression in English, only, unfortunately, not the same impression as we get from the original. Naturally we should compare it with “ the worshippers once purged” of verse 2, and the “ for ever” strengthens us in this view. But the Greek shows at once that verse 2 must be compared not contrasted. with verse 14, the participle there being the perfect while here it is a full present. And when we translate it by a full present, instead of the indefinite past of the version and revision, " them that are being sanctified," we see at once how widely different the meaning is. The sanctifying work of Christ is not as to its blessed effect past, done with and complete : but it is a work perpetually and daily in course of realisation in those who by grace co-operate with Its grace.
S. JAMES THE APOSTLE. M.
JULY 25TH. “Grant, o merciful God, that as Thine holy Apostle Saint James, leaving his father and all that he had, without delay was obedient unto the calling of Thy Son JESUS CHRIST, and followed Him; so we, forsaking all worldly and carnal affections, may be evermore ready to follow Thy holy commandments; through Jesus CHRIST our LORD." -The Collect.
I AWOKE from troubled dreams, when the stars were hid from sight,
And heard a solemn Whisper, yet like holy music sweet, Calling on me to follow Him, though cold and dark the night,
And lay my burden down without delay at His blest Feet. The Voice was with compassion and authority imbued,
And ne'er has mortal tongue revealed a love so true and deep :But I was weary--self-indulged—and for permission sued,
To fold my hands a little while—a little while to sleep.
“If I find Him, if I follow, what His guerdon here ?"
Thus I dared to question, and received the grave reply'Many a sorrow-many a labour—many a tear.”
Alas—I shrank dismayed, and from conscience strove to fly. “If I still hold closely to Him, what hath He at last ?”
Thus again I ventured-and received the soft reply-
Ah!—how could I still turn away and hear my SAVIOUR sigh.
Pity a sinful wanderer whose tardy footsteps stray-
C. A. M. W.
LIGHT IN DARK PLACES.
A RECORD OF THE LATER YEARS OF THE UNIVERSITIES' MISSION
“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light.”— Acts. xxvi. 18.
“How shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.”—Romans x. 15.
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”-S. Mark xyi. 15.
It was on the return of Dr. Livingstone from his first long journey that he told the English how the southern part of Central Africa, the " home of many nations,” was still in black darkness and ignorance, and this, as he eloquently impressed upon those who heard him, was in consequence of England's neglect: to quote the words of Bishop Steere in his speech delivered at Oxford in 1875,
“He laid his great discoveries before us as a nation and a church, and specially before our Universities, concluding his great speech at Cambridge with the prophecy of himself, so lately fulfilled, that he should return to Africa, which he had made his second home, and die there, while still engaged in his great work of discovery, leaving it, as he said, to the English Church, as represented by her Universities, to see that the door he had opened for Christianity and for civilization should never again be shut.”
This appeal of Dr. Livingstone to the Universities was not made in vain, and it was determined to send out a mission “ as worthy as possible of the senders.” The first step taken was the appointment of a