Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-07-13
THE LORDS PRAYER.
FACT THAT FEW PEOPLE CAN RE-
PEAT 1T FROM MEMORY.
Professor Harris, OF Richmond College,
Answers Our Correspond
ent "P."
To ne EdRor Of he Dispatch:

To NE Edl0r or nc J7sDdich:
In your issue of July 9Th n correspond
ent signing himself "P." calls upon me or
some other 10 say whether or not tho rem
dcring Lead us d,cdy fro'" temptation"
is authorized by the original. lie is doubt
less familiar with the distinction between
translation. or transferring an expression.
as accurately as differences Of idiom will
allow from ono language into another, and
Interpretation. or explaining the meaning
Of On expression by comparing il WITH
other statements pertaining 20 the same
topic. The former IS a work for tho lin
gulst. and should be done In the sacred
writings without personal colOring by any
theological views: the latter IL for the
theoloci an. and can hardly escape the bias
OF his creed. Speaking then purely from
linguistic point OF view ! am bound 10
say that the proposed translation IS mad
missible.
It NAV be worth while 20 add. however,
that the word rendered temptation, with
its coguats verb. Is used sometimes Of any
test. trial, or proving, as Q. y. IN the exhorta-
ton Oh. Cor. Kill, 81. EJ0UlEe your
Selves or the a1monition Games
/. y. Count it all JOY when
ye fall into manifold temptations y
Marg. bTdis). but more frequently u y
used for that special form of trial
which arises from entcement 10 do EVIL,
as in the accounts OF our Lords temptation
in tho desert. or in the passage cited by
"pn danes J., 13l. God cannot be Tempt
ed of evil, and he himself temuteth no
man" There NAV room for doubt whether
we should read with the Revsors Bring us
not into temptation, " or should rather say,
into trials. but either NAV be interpreted
in perfect consistency with other passages,
for the Scriptures. tinged with lleorlstic
words of thought. often speak OF God az
doinJ. what our more log cal ANALYSIS would
call permitting another q ~. - there Is no
sufficient reason. / think, tor aYOidlng
the familiar expression.
Pardon sllusion 10 two slips of inadyer-
tence "P.n SAYS of the prayer. 10 was
given. "a all know. on invitation OF the
disciples and 4" Is the only torn OF prayer
gwen by the Saviour TO hrs followers
TIE facts seem % be that IN the sermon on
the mount. discussing the subject OF
PRAYER. he gave a model, saying After
this manner pray ye' Matthew VI. 9-l3l.
and more than year later, when near Je-
rusalem, at the request OF "one OF ms dis-
ciples.n probably not one 81 the twelve,
repeated the same PRAYER ln substance
duke xi., ID. but with notable diversity
in yerbiage. See Revised Version The
differences indicate thatIt was not Intended
as q form OF PRAYER" H. III. II.
RICWoSD COLLEGE. July 9Th.
=. 81 venture 90 affirm that not one IN
o hundred OF the Dispatch readers can re-
peat tho Lords Prayer exactly as 1t -
gwen IN either place IN the King James
version, and not one in thousand "a 10
reads in the Canterbury revision. You
think Won can? Well. take "A slip OF paper
and write ont what You think II IS and
then compare the writing with your print
ed Bible. Try the same experiment with
your friends.