 |  |
whether this unexpected variation does not throw some light upon the gifts themselves
. . . . . He will feel that perhaps `wisdom' is absolute, unchangeable, belonging to things
eternal; that `knowledge' is progressive and `grows from more to more'. If this be so, he
will understand that, in one case, the Spirit is, as it were, the Speaker of the word in the
soul; that in the other case, He is the Guide Who directs and rules and regulates the
observation which finds expression through man. And when he has realized this twofold
action of the Spirit, He will be prepared to consider that there is yet a third relation in
which we may stand to Him. We may be, as it were, lost in Him, enwrapped in His
transfiguring influence. Then faith which wields the power of the world to come has its
scope. Now even if this particular interpretation be faulty or imperfect, still it will not
have been without use that the English reader has been constrained, as the Greek reader,
to take account of the manifold action no less than the manifold gifts of the Spirit"
(Bishop Westcott).
As Bishop Westcott has himself expressed some doubts as to the interpretation of this
passage, we are under no necessity to criticize. Quite apart from the interpretation itself,
his words will perhaps quicken the reader's interest in the correct translation of the Greek
prepositions.
Another passage dealing with gifts of ministry that is intimately connected with our
own calling and dispensation, is Eph. 4: 12. The A.V. rendering is:--
"For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
body of Christ."
The R.V. reads:--
"For the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of
the body of Christ."
The preposition here are pros (R.V. "for") and eis (R.V. "unto"). Instead of three
succeeding items as suggested by the A.V. "For . . . . . for . . . . . for", we have one
phrase introduced by "for" branching out into two parallel phrases introduced by the
second preposition "unto".
While the R.V. had made many useful alterations in the prepositions, it still remains
an almost insoluble problem as to how the various prepositions with their niceties of
meaning can be rendered into intelligible English.
Take for example John 16: 27, 28 and 30. Where the A.V., in verse 27, says "came
out from", the R.V. reads "came forth from"; where the A.V., in verse 28, reads "came
forth from", the R.V. goes back to "came out from"; while in verse 30, both versions
have to use the words "camest forth from" for a different preposition. In verse 27 we
have para (beside) and ek (out of), para ton theou exelthou. In verse 28, we have
exelthou para. The reader naturally wonders why the A.V. and the R.V. did not use the
same expression twice over, and also why the R.V. went to the trouble to reverse the
order. When we know that this alteration necessitated a two-thirds majority at the second
revision, we cannot contemptuously dismiss it as trifling. But we realize what a
confession this is of sheer inability to give the English reader an equivalent for the Greek