Page images
PDF
EPUB

proconsul of Syria." But the italicized words are in the Genitive absolute, expressing the circumstance of time, and are so understood by commentators. Had Luke wished to indi

cate the agent he would have used vò. Besides, the preceding word is éyéveto, not in the Passive but Middle Voice, to be translated "took place," or " occurred," or perhaps better with Meyer and others, is equivalent to "was"; in any case the sentence is not passive, and the whole translation becomes

wrong.

66

Matt. iii. 2: Bagıkéia tāv ovgavær," the reign of the heavens," instead of" the kingdom of heaven. So Matt. v. 3, "Happy the poor in spirit, because theirs is the reign of the heavens "; Matt. xiii. 24, "the heavenly reign"; so elsewhere. The phrase reign of the heavens," is ambiguous in sound, and the terms "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," have a fixed and common religious meaning and use.

66

ἐρχόμενον,

6:

Matt. iii. 16: gzóueror, "resting"; but egzouau, "to come" ἔρχομαι, or "go," is never the equivalent of uero, to " remain." Mark ii. 4; xoáßßaros is rendered "pallet." The word signifies a "couch-bed," and may be of any quality; while pallet "signifies a coarse or poor one, and not of necessity movable. Matt. vii. 3 xάogos, any small particle, is rendered “sliver,” and doxós, a beam, is given as "stick"; so that we read, "and why see the sliver that is in your brother's eye, but perceive not the stick in your own eye?" From a wrong rendering of the words in question, the sentence loses its original and true antithesis. Matt. xi. 8: paλaxós is first given as "soft," which is correct, but is at once reproduced as "showy," for which there is no warrant. Matt. xii. 27: dia touto is transThere is want of uniformity in the treatment of specific and technical terms. Sometimes they are translated, as pódiov, " grain-measure"; sometimes transliterated, so that we read, for instance, "sata," or "assaries," or "sextuses," and the notes give the reader no light. Luke x. 4, nipa is rendered "sachel," elsewhere "wallet," once "traveling-bag."

lated in this." 66

66

Unsatisfactory is the treatment of verbal parallels The

revisers made it a rule, in the Synoptics, to translate the parallel passage, where the text was the same, in every place in the same way. Our translator gives notice that he does not adopt this rule. As a consequence the student, comparing the parallels, has his attention constantly drawn to verbal differences, and is unable to determine whether they are of the original or manufactured by the translator. Injustice is done to the New Testament, for the cause of faith demands that while real differences should be honestly recognized, no needless difficulties should be created. The Synoptics have much matter verbally similar; such a method of translation conceals it.

(e) But the translation contains also features which, since they cannot result from want of judgment or knowledge, must be attributed to haste and want of care Such are: the confusion of uvrós, self, or same, with ouros, this, as in Matt. iii. 4 and Mark ii. 36; the words " do not say," as the equivalent of ovy vueis léyere, in John iv. 35. At Matthew xiii. 5, the phrase, dia tò un éxew ßáðos rñs, is, contrary to all precedent, given as "though not having depth of earth." In the parallel passage, Mark iv. 6, precisely the same original is translated, "because it had not much earth." Luke xviii. 25, the words *· εὐκοπώτερον γὰρ ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τρήματος βελόνης εἰσελθεῖν,” appear as, "It is easier for a camel to perforate a needle's eye," and in a note below the passive noun toñua figures as a verb, meaning "to perforate."

3. The Harmony follows largely the usual order, and does not require special comment. Strong, Robinson and Tischendorf have apparently been consulted. A welcome improvement is the insertion of Matthew xxiv. and xxv. as one connected whole.

4. The author does not present his commentary as full or complete. It is largely controversial, or an elaborate exegesis of the special passages which have long been subjects of controversy. For this purpose it has much value. Of the matter thus presented, covering perhaps seventy pages, about one half is reproduced, for the most part verbally, from the pages

"Bible

of the author's previous works, "Bible Proofs," Threatenings Explained," and "Aiōn." This republication will cause the really valuable matter of those earlier works to reach a larger circle of readers. Of the remaining half, some twenty pages consist of citations from Drs. Paige, Clarke, Thayer, Demarest and others. in support of the positions taken, and are both useful and generally convincing. The remainder, some fifteen or twenty pages, is new, original matter. Much of it is good. But some blemishes should at once be remedied.

On page 4 it is said that in the earlier part of the Revised New Testament, the phrase vévμa άzov is usually rendered Holy Spirit. But this is an error.

On page 17 it is affirmed that " Greek had been the prevailing language of Judea for several centuries." Since the introduction of Greek dates from the era of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ, the word "several" is clearly out of place, while as to the adjective prevailing, we are informed by the author, on page 329, that "the common speech of the Jewish people had become a corrupt dialect, 'Syro-Chaldaic › or Aramaic,'

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

On page 75 we are informed that the oldest Targum is that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. This is news indeed. That of Onkelos on the Pentateuch has hitherto counted as the first.

On the same page the date of the latest writings of the Old Testament Apocrypha is put as 150 B.C., and the next page contains a statement to the same effect. But 1 Maccabees brings the history of the Asmonean family down to 135 B.C., and was not written until after the death of John Hyrcanus, 107 B.C., and 2 Maccabees is of later origin still.

[ocr errors]

On 219 one reads that the Gemara Babylonicum was written probably during the Babylonish captivity," and, some lines below, that it was written during the seventy years' captivity, that is, between 588 and 537 B.C.

about a thousand years too early.

But this is surely

The author had before him a task of the utmost difficulty and delicacy; the greatest wonder is that he had the courage

to undertake it. The ground to be traversed is so vast, and yet the knowledge demanded so minute, detailed, accurate, that a certain measure of failure was inevitable. And while recognizing gladly many excellencies, judgment must be rendered that we have here no really important addition either to the list of translations extant or to our own denominational literature. Prof. H. P. Forbes.

66

ARTICLE XVII.

Reaffirmation of the Universalist Exegesis of 2 Cor. V. 10.

In my original article on "Certain Controverted Texts of Scripture," but little space was devoted to the one above cited. The aim was merely to justify, from the Greek original, the position usually taken by our writers, that the words "done" and "in," supplied by the Common Version, really had no right there. This position was confirmed, not only from the most obvious construction of the Greek text, but by the renderings of two of the most ancient and most valued of the early versions, the Peshito Syriac, and Latin Vulgate. It was especially insisted upon that, in the phrase may receive the things," etc., the term "things” (Gr. tà), as object of the verb, must be considered as the things received, and not things done, this word being supplied. This was confirmed from Dr. Barnes, who, as to what the term things,” here use, means, replies: "The appropriate reward of the actions of this life." If, then, the word "things" means the reward, it cannot mean "the things done," and if it means the reward, it must be the reward received, since it is the object of the verb "receive," expressing what is received. Instead of this, the Common Version assumes that it is the things done" which are received, which is pure nonsense. If the Common Version had read, " may receive reward for the things done," it would at least make good

66

166

sense out of the phrase; but the Gr. Text, normally construed, expresses no such idea. We must thus, with Dr. Barnes, take the term "things" in the sense of reward, and of reward received. Yet Dr. Barnes, of course, holds the common orthodox view of the passage in question.

66

Now, to avoid the force of this reasoning, it is urged that the verb "receive," here, actually involves the whole idea given above: "may receive reward for," etc.; and two texts are cited for justification of this construction (Col. iii. 25; Eph. vi. 8). Yet these passages afford not a particle of ground for such construction, nor are they thus construed by the great mass of exegetes. Take the first cited (Col. iii. 25): "But he that doeth wrong shall receive (for) the wrong which he hath done." Here, the word "for" is supplied. Literally, we should translate: "he that doeth wrong shall receive the wrong, which he hath done." As will be "the wrong," here, is the object of the verb receive." That which Winer means, in his note on this text, is, that the wrong "is to be taken in the sense of reward; "he shall receive back the wrong, in the shape of reward." This is precisely the sense of "the things," in 2 Cor. v. 10: "may receive the things"; i. e. the reward. But does the verb "receive," in Col. iii. 25, include in itself the notion of "reward for?" By no means. It has the sense of "shall receive," and nothing more. That which is received is expressed in the verb's object, "the wrong," i. e. in the shape of reward. according to Winer's note. Precisely the same remarks apply to Eph. vi. 8: "whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same (good thing, in the shape of reward) shall he receive." Does the verb "receive," here used, include the notion of "reward for?" Noi at all; that which is received is not expressed in the verb, but in its object. To make Winer, Athenagoras, or any other critic, responsible for the former idea, is to do him the greatest injustice. Yet it is claimed that the verb "receive," in 2 Cor. v. 10, does include the sense of "reward for," and the two texts above are cited in justification of it. They afford not a particle of

« PreviousContinue »