صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

end, we should have rendered the words with Winer, "or was it then the other?"; but the editor meant it to be taken "rather indeed than the other." The reading of the place is not certain, Lachmann has rap' ikɛivov, " beyond the other," which removes the difficulty. But though this has the support of x, B, L, it looks like a correction to facilitate the sense. It is much easier to explain the origin of wap' than λάρ. Meyer indeed resolves the latter into a transcriber's mistake but this is improbable, because it is in a number of different MSS. On the whole, the difficult reading is preferable to the easy one, in this instance as in others. The EKεīvos which De Wette prefers, is too feebly supported by testimony. The expression is unusual in Greek. We have not been able to find an example of it elsewhere, though the new Paris edition of Stephens's Thesaurus has been examined under. Perhaps it would have been better to make it interrogative, "was it then the other," i.e., who was justified; but even that is uncommon, though agreeable to Hermann's theory.

In 1 Timothy iii. 16, where the English version has "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory," there is a little difficulty in connecting the true reading ôs with the preceding context, and this was formerly urged against the pronoun. The "new" reading, it was said, "is neither good sense nor good Greek." In order to justify it, it was proposed to put a parenthesis, so that who (ôç) might be referred to "the living God;" "The church of the living God (the pillar and ground of the truth and incontrovertibly great is the mystery of godliness) who was manifested," etc. Others translated ôç he who, i.e., he who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, etc. This translation. might be defended, if he who be considered a kind of exclamation," he who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, was seen of angels," etc., etc.; notwithstanding the assertion of the Nolans, the Bloomfields, and the

Joneses. But it does not appear to be the correct version of the pronoun in the place before us. The awkwardness of the connection arises from the fact that the passage is taken from a hymn of the apostolic Church, as appears from its structure and parallel members. Being a liturgical insertion, it is loosely appended to the preceding context. We have therefore supplied in him to connect it with what goes before; "the mystery of godliness in him who was manifested in the flesh," etc., etc.

The text of Tischendorf, which is identical with Lachmann's in 2 Timothy iv. 1, is attended with much difficulty. Though the verb diaμaprípoμa occurs in both epistles to Timothy as well as in other parts of the New Testament, its usage does not exactly determine the sense of the present place. In 1 Timothy v. 21 it is followed by iva with the subjunctive of a verb; and in 2 Timothy ii. 14 by un before an infinitive. The lexicons give no aid. Wilke attributes to it the sense beseech both here and in the other parts of the pastoral epistles where it occurs, proceeding on the supposition that it governs no case, as in the received text where κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ. κ. τ. λ. appears instead of καὶ τὴν ἐπιφ. We have found no satisfaction in the explanations of De Wette and Huther. The most natural construction is to take r ἐπιφάνειαν and τὴν βασιλείαν as accusatives governed by the verb diaμaprúpoμa, especially as the same verb has the accusative after it in the Acts: "I testify both his appearing and his kingdom." But the accusative are far separated from the verb; the Kai before the first is awkward; and the testifying of or to a future event is far-fetched. The whole phraseology does not look like Paul's, nor do we suppose it is.

The present version originated in one of the conversations which the writer had with Von Tischendorf in the summer of 1872. That scholar had just completed the publication of the eighth critical edition, contemplating no future one because his best efforts and mature judgment had been expended on the finished volumes. Having prepared a text

for scholars, he naturally wished it to be read by all Englishspeaking people, and asked the translator to make it accessible to that large class who do not know Greek. Feeling the arduousness of the task, the latter hesitated, but finally consented to gratify a friend whom he loved; and some arrangements were made at the time for its immediate performance. But difficulties arose. Von Tischendorf was struck down and compelled to cease from mental occupation. Affliction came upon the present writer also, who was visited with irreparable loss. The translation was interrupted by this bereavement and by a subsequent sojourn in Italy. But it was never abandoned. Though prosecuted slowly, the author felt himself bound by a principle of honour to perform his promise. It has been a solace in affliction, a relief from the fruitless indulgence of regrets, an engrossing employment amid lonely longings for the society of the just made perfect. Our friend, alas, is not here to see the completed work. Had he lived, he would have written an Introduction to accompany the present one. But his ideas generally coincided with those of the translator; and he would have expressed little that has not been said here. His preface would have related to the text he finally edited, whose antiquity he put on a par almost with originality; for his opinion was that the text of the second century is presented in substantial integrity.

Let it be remembered that a translation of the New Testament is capable of successive revision. It does not come from the maker of it at once as perfect perhaps as he can produce it. It is always touched and retouched by the fastidious scholar. Like a dictionary, it admits of amendments conformed to the increasing knowledge or taste of the writer. In the brief period of human life a man can only carry out his ideal partially. It is some satisfaction to the writer that he has tried to fulfil the purpose of his departed friend; and he indulges the hope that Von Tischendorf may be pleased even now with the thought that the Greek text over which he spent many toilsome years circulates in the English tongue, bearing the

sacred words current in the church of the third century into the dwellings of the humble, putting the plain reader on the same platform with the scholar, and inspiring him with confidence in records whence he draws the sustenance of the soul. May many be strengthened by the words and spirit of Jesus, in their aspirations after the blessed life!

In this second edition the work has been carefully revised, and, it is hoped, materially improved.

May, 1876.

EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN THINGS IN THE TEXT

OF THIS VERSION.

WORDS included in brackets show that their authenticity is doubtful. Quotations from the Old Testament are printed in italics.

The term invápiov, which the received version renders penny, is here translated denarius because no proper equivalent exists in English. Its worth was about seven pence halfpenny. The value of money, however, is so different at different times that it is impossible to give an exact idea of a coin current in one age by another belonging to an age in which things bear other proportions. A Roman penny might have been equal in value to forty pence now.

The apyúpiov, or piece of silver, silverling, was the Jewish shekel, equal in value to two shillings and sixpence.

didpaxμov has been rendered half-shekel, to which Jewish coin it was equivalent in the times of the New Testament. It was equal to one shilling and three pence.

àoσápiov is translated penny, being the tenth part of a denarius, and therefore approaching a penny in value.

λETTÓν, or mite, was the smallest Jewish coin, equal to three-eighths of a farthing.

σTаThр, or stater, was equal to four drachmae, about two shillings and sixpence.

« السابقةمتابعة »