ON THINGS IN GENERAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11581, 20 February 1901, Page 3

ON THINGS IN GENERAL

SATURDAY'S GATHERING.

It would be impossible for me in my weekly ii gossip to omit mention of the great gathering in the Domain on Saturday to welcome tie Imperial .soldiers. Apart from the fact that it was the largest crowd that has ever assembled in New Zealand, it was remarkable for the extraordinary number of women nd children which helped to make up its swelling proportions. I would say that the ladies outnumbered the men by three to one, while the youngsters were like the sands of the sea shore. And what an orderly crowd it- was ! I can only compare it to a gigantic garden party. Everyone was well dressed and well behaved, while the beauty of the surroundings formed an exquisite setting to the gay and animated picture. I doubt whether such a charming scene could be matched anywhere in the British Empire, jlr. T. Atkins is not as a rule a keen lover of the picturesque, but it was surprising the number of soldiers who were impressed with the scene on Saturday, and I venture to say it is one that- will live fresh and green in their memories when most of the other scenes in connection with their unique visit to the colonies have become dim and indistinct, or been clean forgotten. A CHALLENGE. . My remarks about the General Synod last week seem to have got me into serious trouble. I have actually received a challenge. and, shocking to relate, it comes from a highly respected Auckland clergyman. The Rev. W. Edward Lush writejs is follows: —"'The General' says that Mr. Beatty's opinion that the Greek of the Revisers is bad and their English no better, is against that of Westcott," Hort, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Trench. Stanley, Scrivener, and Light foot. I challenge him to quote from the writings of these men passages to substantiate his position. Ido not believe fliat anyone of them ever said it was written ill good English, judged from a. literary standpoint. I have never seen or heard of anyone who ever had the courage to maintain such an impossible contention. Westcott, Hort, and Ellicott may have defended the Greek in the main, not on every point. I understand that Scrivener said the alterations in the Greek text were ' laid on the sandy foundation of ingenious conjecture.' I have heard many teachers say they would cane a schoolboy for such crude English as the translation is. Why did not ' The General' quote Burgon? I suppose because his trenchant articles in the Quarterly of 18811882 gave the translation such a blow that it has never recovered from the criticism." THE TWO VERSIONS. : So Mr. Lush challenges me to quote from tho writings of the. scholars he has mentioned passages to substantiate my assertion that Mr. Beatty's opinion that " the Greek of the Revisers is bad. and their English no better," is against the opinions of these scholars. Now, I must confess that my theological library is not.sufficiently extensive to enable me to give the views of all the writers whose names have been mentioned, but I think I can give him the opinions of two of them, who are certainly not the least eminent of the Company of Revisers. I think Mr. Lush will admitthat the opinions of Dr. Westcott, the Bishop of Durham, are entitled to greatweightperhaps even greater weight than those of Dean Burgoq. In his work on "Some lessons of the Revised Version."' Dr. estcott defends the principle of presenting to the English reader a text as nearly re'presenting the Greek as is possible, under the conditions of translation. But let u.-r have his own words. He says the claim the Revisers confidently make is " that they have placed the English reader far more nearly than before in the position of the Greek scholar; that they have made it possible for him to trace out innumerable subtleties of harmonious correspondence between different parts of the New Testament, which were hitherto obscured ; that they have given him a copy of the original which is marked by a faithfulness unapproached, I will venture to say, by any other ecclesiastical version." Could Dr. Westcott have said more? Let us next take the opinion of Dr. Ellicott. the venerable Bishop of Gloucester, •who attended no less than 405 out of the 407 meetings of the Revision Committee. Speaking in Convocation in 1899 on a proposal, which was carried, to allow the use of the new version in the services of the Church under certain conditions, Dr. Ellicott expressed his " thankfulness to Almighty God that He lias been pleased so to bless this work that it will now be permissible for the Revised Version to be read, with the limitations prescribed, in our churches." These are surely not the •words of a man who would admit that the new version is a mixture of bad Greek and bad English. But Mr. Lush says " Westcott, Hort. and Ellicott may have defended the Greek in the main, not on every point." I never dreamed of saying the Revisers were unanimous or every point. Speaking of the version as a whole. Mr. Beatty said "the Greek of the Revisers is bad and their English no better," and I contended that this was contrary to the opinions of the scholars mentioned. Let us have, another quotation from Westcott. He says no change was introduced into the text—and I suppose the Revisers were responsible for the English as well as the Greek" unless it approved itself to at least two-thirds of the scholars who took part in the division." In conclusion. I would recommend the following statement of Westcott to Messrs. Lush and Beatty :—" The text . . . represents the united and deliberate judgment of a larger and more varied body of scholars than has ever on any other occasion discussed together a version of the New Testament into another language." A GLIMPSE AT TOMMY ATKINS. 1 Tommy Atkins cannot complain of the re- ] ception accorded to him in Auckland on i Saturday. His march to the Domain was , a triumphant procession through lines of 1 cheering spectators. Who would not be ] a Tommy? The mere civilian was a very ■ insignificant nobody on Saturday. Khaki , may have its advantage in actual warfare, - and it was no doubt the fashion last year; j but for a real military pageant the bright ( and varied colours of the older uniforms are not to be beaten. It was the variety—the , kilts and the tartans, and the red coats, and ( the headgear of different shapes and colours —that made Saturday's display so fascinat- , ing. Had all been clothed in khaki the , procession might have grown monotonous, , but one could have watched the march past on Saturday again and again without grow- - ing weary. It was a great sight entirely. j The men "in kilts were great favourites with , the crowd. Indeed, they were a fine lot. ] One can easily believe that it was men of j this stamp to whom the French prisoner } referred after Quatr'- Bras, when, speaking . of the desperate resistance of the 42nd High- J landers, he said, "Your people must be verv ignorant; they know not when to surrender, although conquered. W c beat them, vet thev st'ind." WITCHCRAFT. j When we read of the persistence of belief in witchcraft among the Maoris, as brought ( to light by the recent case at Napier, for ] instance, some of us are inclined to glory in our mental superiority, and wonder how it is that the superstitions of the Maoris should continue in spite of the teaching of the missionaries and the advantage of having the society of such a noble race as ourselves. < We seem to forget what a long and weary job Christianity and civilisation had to ex- ; tirpate the belief in witchcraft among our own race, and we expect 50 or 60 years to do for the Maoris what it required over a ; thousand vears to do lor our own people. Belief in witchcraft is hardly dead in Eng- c land yet. As late as 1865 a poor old para- '~ lysed Frenchman died in consequence of having been swum as a wizard in Essex. In 1875 the trial at Warwick Assizes of the murderei of a reputed witch, Drought out the fact that over a third of the villagers 1 of Long Conipton were firm believers in witchcraft; and in 1879, it! Norfolk, a man was fined for assaulting the daughter of an old woman who had charmed him by means of a walking toad. Only a few months ago a writer in an English journal informed us "that every class of society, from the smart , society lady down to the suburban housemaid, is throwing its silvei and gold into the •. ] coffers of adepts if the art of reading prettythings in the lines, mounts, and hollows of your hand;'' and men are willing "to form i their views oi life and its destinies from a j mount in the hand, r. bump on their head, the ascendancy of a planet, an aboriginal guess at truth in India, spirit appearance in Mor-'intfton Road or Hampstead." Such thoughts should make us very patient with the Maoris, and cause i's to paus: before . patronisingly assuming the role of the su : ( perior person in our relations to our Maori ( friends. , • 1

NO EXCUSE FOR CRIME.

A lav.' days ago Judge Edwards compared the conditions of life in New Zealand with those which obtained in England, and came to the conclusion that there was no excuse for crime in this colony. The Judge was surely right. Yet crime is only too prevalent, even among colonially-born, who are neither starving nor ragged. Politicians and social reformers certainly had some excuse for expecting that free education, opportunities for taking up land, conciliation and arbitration, and old age pensions, combined with general prosperity, would have wiped out crime. On Saturday, for instance, when all Auckland was out of doors, everyone was well dressed and looked happv and contented. It would have been difficult to have found a sign of poverty. One might well ask what excuse is there for crime among such a people? Yet our law courts are always busy. Nine-tenths of the crime is not the result of poverty or wretched conditions of life, but sheer devilment. If education, social legislation, and material prosperity will not cure crime, what will? There are some people who tell us that it is here that religion comes in. It is stated that Wesley remarked on seeing a malefactor on his way to gaol or the gallows : •' There but for the grace of God goes John Wesley." An abundance of the influence, whatever it may be, which turns out John Wesleys in preference to criminals is .greatly to be desired. The General.