THE SURVEY OF THOUGHT.

TO OUR READERS.-We issue the first number of THE THINKER to the reading public with much pleasure and with considerable confidence, assured that the high and scholarly character of its contents will at once be recognized and acknowledged. We would fain indulge the hope that the Magazine will be found to occupy a distinct place of its own, which has hitherto been left vacant in literature. The best Biblical and Theological papers contained in the Foreign Journals have never before, so far as we know, been rendered adequately accessible to English readers. This will be one of our special features, and we much regret that difficulty in obtaining some of the Foreign Magazines has impaired the completeness of this department in our present issue. It will in future embrace a much larger number of Reviews. We hope for success, but cannot command it, and shall do our best to deserve it. We have much in our favour in having obtained the aid of a large and able band of Contributors, and in having arranged a useful and varied programme which will be gradually unfolded during the year. But the price of the Magazine, which is higher than usual in these days of cheap literature, and also the scholarly ideal at which we aim, may impede our progress. If this should prove to be the case, after fair trial, we shall abandon the venture; we shall not unduly prolong a lingering life. We ask all Readers who appreciate our Magazine to recommend it to their friends, and to promote its circulation in any other convenient way. Our next number will contain papers on Prof. Cheyne's Bampton Lectures on the Psalms, and on Canon Driver's Introduction to the Old Testament. Our pages are open to Criticism by our Readers, provided it is competent and reverent: fair discussion will always be welcomed. This Magazine will not advocate any special School of Thought or Critical Opinion; it will endeavour to pursue Truth wherever it is likely to be found, we trust with caution as well as with courage. We much regret that several important papers are crowded out of our present issue. We shall give prizes during the year for Reviews of Books and for Expository Papers, the first of which is announced in our Notices to Correspondents.

NO. I.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER.

A

Deliver us FROM EVIL.-An article in the Bibliotheca Sacra deals with the last petition of the Lord's Prayer, commenting on Bishop Lightfoot's treatment of this vexed question in his posthumous work, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament. The English Revisers, with whom the American seem to coincide, render ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, "from the evil one" (with (with "or, evil" in the margin); and the Bishop, as one of the company of Revisers, gives an authoritative statement of the reasons which induced them to decide upon this translation. 1. “Ο πονηρός, the evil one, is a common expression in the New Testament, and occurs three or four times as often as TÒ πоνηρÒν, the evil thing." The actual fact is, the masculine is used perhaps seven times, the neuter twice certainly, and four times more possibly. Two of the seven cases are doubtful, so that really nothing can be proved from counting the instances of usage. Further, in the speech of the time, the devil was not usually called & ovηpós, in fact, only once in the Gospels (Matt. xiii. 19) and two or three times in the Epistles. 2. "The word 'temptation' suggests the mention of the tempter, which gives μǹ-ảλλá its proper force; the neuter nullifies the strong opposition implied by these particles, for temptation' is not co-extensive with 'evil."" But this is making too much of un-dλλá, which does not require the clauses to be exact counterparts. No one feels any incongruity in the antithesis as presented in the Authorized Version, "Bring us not into solicitations to evil, but deliver us froin it." The tempter is indeed virtually implied, but needs not to be specially mentioned. 3. "The omission of the clause by Luke is intelligible only if ToÛ TOηoû be masculine, the tempter being practically involved in temptation, but not so if the neuter be adopted." But the neuter does not make the second clause an independent proposition, and Luke merely abridges the petition. Luke, too, omits "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth," which is surely an independent petition. 4. "If moral evil is meant, åμapтía, πovηpía, or dvouía should have been used." On the contrary, neither of these words would have conveyed the broad signification of evil conduct, evil influences, evil ones, which Tò ovηpòv suggests. 5. "If we acknowledge that in the Old Testament the references to that which is evil' are much more frequent and prominent than the mention of Satan, we must remember that the devil appears therein very seldom under any designation, and that the Septuagint version did not fix finally theological diction." But the influence of the Old Testament on the minds of Christ's hearers did not depend on either of the above considerations, but on the habits of thought induced by these Scriptures read in the synagogues. 6. "The Fathers almost universally take the expression as masculine." But is their exegesis always reliable? And the Fathers in other instances differ from the New Testament in their use of Tovηpós. Also, they give more prominence to the personal Satan than πονηρός. the New Testament does. On the whole, the writer concludes that a servile following of the Greek Fathers has led to the masculine rendering, and that the true interpretation regards the expression as neuter.