Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-04


saving, "Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa,
Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch,
q Jerome, as well as other writers, especi-
- ally Greeks, testify that these verses
s.were not written by st. Mark. or not
found in the best copies" This, we
should think, ought to be conclusive, but
the revisers could not make up their
minds to do justice en the spurious text,
and SO they have retained it, merely signi-
flying their doubts by a marginal note, and
by leaving considerable space between it
and the preceding verses. DR.. Roberts
puts forward this amusing apology for its
retention "We cannot ascertain its
author, but we are sure he must have
!" been one who belonged to the circle of
the Apostles"
This is not worthy of the occasion. In
the first place it is perfectly clear that if
the author is unknown there can be no
assurance that he belonged to the circle
"of the Apostles. . In the second place
there is abundant evidence that none of
the Synoptics were written by persons who
" belonged to the circle of the Apostles, y
and therefore the statement of DIR. Roberts
involves an assumption which is disingenu-
Gus and misleading. The plain truth is
that the revisers ought to have omitted
these verses, and in retaining them, while
confessing their spuriousness, they have
contrived to cast discredit upon much
more than the suspected passages.
The most important pseudo-change is in
John VII, 53-viii., II. This is the story
of the woman who was taken in adultery.
The revisers have allowed it to stand in
their version, but have embraced it in
brackets, and have accompanied it with
an explanatory marginal note. Tie evil
dence on this story is nearly all condemna-
tory. DR.. Roberts says ut is not found
'' in any of the frst-rate Uncials, nor in
''the Syrian and other ancient versions.
"There is no evidence that it was known
to Origen, Chrysostom, and others of
the early fathers. 1t is obelised as
doubtful by many OF the manuscripts
(which contain it. The texts in which it
has come down to us vary exceedingly
among themselves. And there are
other reasons for rejecting it. Yet it has
been retained, though shown to be desti-
tute OF authority, on the ground that, as DR..
Roberts puts 1t the narrative itself
breathes the very spirit of Christ and
Christianity" OF its beauty there can
be no doubt. But when, as here, the
question is Of the publication and yerifica.
ton of writings for which the claim OF
sacred inspiration is made, it should be
evident that the sentimental consideration
advanced IN defense of the retention OF
this passage has no relevancy. The Ques-
ton is whether the alleged sacred writers
wrote it, and the answer of the reviserf
to this question shows that their scholar.
ship is much sounder than their orthodoxy,
for it indicates that they very well IN.
deratand how little difference in authen.
ITCHY there really is between the dicta OF
this unknown author and those Of the
equally unknown authors OF the Synoptics.
The next change is in Colossians H., 2.
The authorized version reads That their
t'hearts might be comforted, being knit
together in love, and unto all riches OF
% the full assurance OF understanding, to
the acknowledgment of the mystery of
"God, and of the Father, and of Christ. -
Here the doctrine of the Trinity is postu-
lated, but the revisers have found no war
rant for the amplifcation of the Godhead,
and have therefore, in timid way, and
with the usual marginal note, given the
translation of the last part of the verse as
follows that they may know the mys.
"tery of God, even Christ There are, as
they say, many variations of reading, and
the variations are so great that it is really
impossible to do anything but take hap
hazard choice The revisers have decided
to make kind of sense Of the passage by
the introduction of word for which there
is no authority, and as the original text of
several Of the best manuscripts is COM
pletely blind, perhaps this conclusion is as
good as another. OF course this change
will be resisted by narrow doctrinarians,
but it is at least as justifable as any of
the others which have been made, and
more 30 than not few of them.
An important, or rather, perhaps, start
ling change, is made in Tim. iii, l6. The
authorized version reads: "And without
controversy, great is the mystery of god
illness God was manifest in the hesh. p
Dean Afford translates this: And con.
fessedly great is the mystery of godi-
ness, lOho was manifested in the flesh. J"
The revisers have followed the Dean, who
has on his side all the most ancient manu-
scripts, with one exception, and even that
one does not justify the translation in the
authorized version. The question turns
upon the construction of Greek letter in
the Cursiye manuscripts. DIR. Roberts
enters at some length into the explanation
of the course taken in this text, but the
fact that the authorized version could not
have been retained without ignoring the
results of the ripest scholarship of the
age in this direction, ought to be suffi.
Gent justification for the change. no mat
ter what results that change may have
upon doctrinal propositions and old SER
mons.
We now come to highly significant
alteration, which occurs in l John ", 7, s.
The authorized version is as follows: Z" For
"there are three that bear record in
" heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
" Holy Ghost; and there are three that
"bear witness on the earth, the spirit, and
"the water, and the blood, and these three