Outside Bearings and Opinions

A correspondent of the Freeman (Baptist) writes:

“The first thing to attract attention is the alteration in the title of the books and the headings of pages. Following the fashion of the ritualists, ‘St.’ has become ‘S.’ wherever it occurs. If High Churchmen are pleased with that mark of deference they will not enjoy unmingled satisfaction, for the Epistles are headed with the simple name of the author. There is an evident mark of compromise in this lack of uniformity, the absurdity of which becomes most striking in connection with the name of John. As the writer of the fourth Gospel he is ‘S. John,’ as the author of three Epistles he is plain ‘John,’ but as the Seer of Patmos, to whom the Revelation was imparted, he is ‘S. John the Divine.’”

The Roman Catholics are rejoicing that the revision supports the vulgate in some instances, and the Tablet, their organ, contends that by this the great value of Jerome’s version is demonstrated and the translations based upon it are likely to be more highly esteemed. The Jewish papers also are profiting by the occasion.

While urging how rational is Judaism in denying the existence of a supernatural Satan, the Jewish World endeavours, in a most unscholarly way, to support the rendering “deliver us from the evil one” in the Lord’s prayer: the object in view being, of course, to show that Jesus taught the existence of the popular Devil. The Jewish Chronicle coolly says “that the omission of the concluding verses of Mark’s gospel considerably weakens the evidence for the resurection of Jesus,” and confirms “the position the Jews have always taken up in denying the extravagant claims of the followers of Jesus.” Could any contention be more hollow? The Jewish writer cannot have read the verses omitted; if he had he would have discovered that the passage now all but excised does not report the resurrection of Christ, but records certain things which took place subsequently to that event. The early part of the chapter is Mark’s account of the resurrection, and that account is as consistent as the other three. The distinguishing feature is brevity; but the facts are there in a small compass. Verses 9 to 20 of Mark 16. form a summary of things recorded in other parts of the New Testament. The margin of any reference Bible will show this. No right-minded person wishes to retain it if the evidence is against its authenticity. According to the most approved standards of judgment in such matters, it appears that the verses are an addition to what Mark wrote. What is the evidence? The verses are found in the Alexandrian, Ephraem, and Beza MSS., and in most of the ancient versions—including the Peshito Syriac.

They are acknowledged by Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Augustine. And, of course, many MSS. more recent than those mentioned contain them. The whole passage is omitted in the two oldest MSS.—the Sinaitic and Vatican. The Paris MS. presents it in another form. In the time of Jerome it was absent from nearly all Greek copies of the Gospel, and also from all reprinted “accurate copies,” quoted by Eusebius, From the writings of the “Fathers” it can be shown that the passage existed in the Second Century, but various documents carry intimations of suspicion, appended marks, and scholia. Alford, Tischendorf and Weiss are among those who believe the verses not to have formed part of the original Gospel. Lachmann included them in the text, but did not believe them to be genuine. The late Dr. Tregelles would not pronounce decidedly as to whether they should be regarded as genuine or not. Dr. Scrivener and Dr. McClellan, two living scholars of eminence, accept the passage; while Drs. Westcott and Hart, whose unpublished Greek Testament has lately been collated, regard it as probably an early supplement by which the mutilated or unfinished close of the Gospel was completed. Alford also expressed the opinion that it was “probably placed here in very early times,” and observed that it had “ever been regarded as possessing the same canonical authority” with the Gospels. Here the reader has the evidence in brief. The critics have differed. The Revision Committee has certainly decided with the majority. The language used is said to be out of form with the usual diction of Mark. Many have thought that the fragment has been substituted for the conclusion of the Gospel which may have been lost. Dr. Angus, in the Sunday Magazine, says of these verses:—

“A common opinion among scholars is that they represent a supplement by Mark himself, though differing from his usual style, to finish the book. The eight verse certainly does not read like a completion of the history.”

In the course of a sermon at Everton, near Liverpool, “Canon” Taylor, remarking upon the phrase, “Deliver us from the evil one,” said:

“He sincerely regretted that the revisers had so rendered it, and he did so the more readily because he was a firm believer in the personality of Satin. He regretted it because it obliged those who doubted to express themselves on the point; and, moreover, there were in the revised version two instances where the same word in the Greek was rendered by the abstract English noun, which was an inconsistency. To rightly constituted minds the words ‘from evil’ included ‘from the evil one,’ though they did not express it. He, therefore, thought the addition was unnecessary, and being unnecessary he asked—Why introduce into the Lord’s Prayer the belief in the distinct personality of the devil”?

Dr. Angus, one of the Revisers, is contributing a series of articles in the Sunday Magazine. As is well known, if the best authorities were followed, we should read on the title pages of the gospels, simply “According to Matthew,” or “the Gospel according to Matthew;” never according to Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, &c. Dr. Angus in his last article points out that the form followed in the Authorised version, and retained in the Revised version, is “of mediæval origin, and destroys the simplicity of the early text.” He says:

“St. John the Divine and St. Matthew give dignities to those writers which are equally due, though not given, to James and Peter, and the titles seem to have scriptural authority. To some ears the dignity sounds tawdry and human, and it is a dignity moreover that is the common heritage of all who are ‘sanctified’ in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints.”

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph noticing Dr. G. Vance Smith’s article in the Nineteenth Century says it “fully concurs” in one of the writer’s opinions. “In the authorised version ‘hell’ is the rendering of two different words—Gehenna and Hades. The revisers have adopted the word Hades, which will be new to English readers. It occurs eleven times in the revised version. But, as Mr. Vance Smith pertinently observes, ‘Gehenna is a proper name also! Why, therefore, has not this been retained, but rendered by the ugly word hell?’ And after alluding to the well-known fact that Gehenna is the name of a valley near Jerusalem, he goes on to say—

‘The ideas associated with the mediæval hell—such as may be seen painted on the walls of the Campo Santo at Pisa—are unknown to the Gospels, and have only been added to the original name in its modern form by the lively imaginations of the speculative theologians. In other words, the representation of ‘Gehenna’ by ‘hell’ is clearly unjustifiable, because this terrible words now suggests ideas of horror and misery which have no foundation in New Testament usage, when due regard is paid to the origin and history of the word Gehenna. It might have been expected that a body of revisers such as the Westminster Company would have been able to raise themselves above the popular conceptions of our day, and would have given us a rendering of the words in question which was fairly based not upon the long-descended notions of the darkest ages of mediæval superstition, but upon the just historical considerations which are applicable to the subject.’”

The reviewer seems to have forgotten that in 2 Pet. 2:4, another word—a third—is also translated “hell.” And hades, gehenna, and tartaros have no meaning in common.

Writing in the New York Critic, Dr. Schaff, chairman of the American Committee, says:—

“The Americans are less hampered by tradition and usage than the English. A prudent or timid conservatism has led the English Committee to retain many archaisms and inaccuracies which the judgment of their own best scholars condemns and would not tolerate in a commentary or translation of their own. The English Revisers have retained ‘which’ for ‘who’ when applied to persons, ‘be’ for ‘are’ in the present indicative; ‘for to’ for ‘to;’ ‘wot’ for ‘know;’ and what is much worse, ‘devil’ and ‘devils’ for ‘demon’ and ‘demons’ (thus leaving on the mind of the reader the false impression of a plurality of devils); and ‘penny’ for ‘denarius.’ The English originally adhered also to ‘hell’ for ‘hades’ but surrendered hell at last when they reached the Apocalypse. Why then still stick to ‘devils’ and ‘whiches’ to vex the English reader? In all these and many other points, the Americans prefer truth to tradition, and modern usage to obsolete forms. It is not impossible, however, that the English Committee, which has adopted such a large number of American suggestions, will ultimately yield those points also. The American community will certainly, with few exceptions, prefer the readings and renderings of the Appendix, and when the revision is once authorised by the churches they will be incorporated in the text.”

Dr. Fairbairn, principal of Airedale College, (Congregational), in the course of a lecture referring to the alteration—“but deliver us from the evil one”—said that in many respects the rendering might be justified; but he thought that when the connection was taken into account the original idea was an idea of evil as such, and that was more comprehensive and more terrible than the idea of the “evil one.” He quoted passages from the Epistle to the Romans which showed that the Revisers had not adhered in this respect to their own canons, and which, he said, was a sufficient condemnation of the change.