Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1881-06-01

their responsibilities as translatcrs of
the Lords Book compelled the COM
mittee to eXpunge these words.
THE LORDS PRAYER
One marked change which will strike
the Christian reader is the entire omis-
sion of the doxology of the Lords pray
er, at Matthew VII, l3. The words
For thine is the kingdom and the pow
er and the glory forever, Amen are
entirely omitted Textual critics have
long since given this up. 1t is not
found in any of the great uncials which
contain the passage, and it is not MOTTO
ed by the earliest fathers in their expo
sitions of the Lords prayer, while the
internal evidence is against it, since it
interrupts the context. In favor of it
is the fact that it occurs in most of the
ancient versions, notably the Syriac
But the Syriac, with some other of the
more valuable versions, seem to have
been conformed to the prevalent text
of the fourth century. and to exist no
longer in its primitive condition, so
that we cannot insist on its authority
In support OF the passage.
ONE INCIDENT OMITTED
The passage in John concerning the
woman taken in adultery has long been
battle ground for the expositors. Con-
cerning 1t, it may be said generally
that the incident harmonizes perfectly
with the spirit and dealing of Christ
that if it did not occur, it might have
occurred, and that our Lords treatment
of the case was what we should expect
from Him. Every New Testament
reader, we think, would be glad to
have its genuineness put beyond ques-
tion. Manuscript authority is against
it. 1t is not found in any one of the
| frst-rates uncials, nor in the ancient
versions; nor is their evidence that it
was known to Origen, Chrysostom and
others of the early fathers. Even
many of the manuscripts which do con-
tain it have it marked as doubtful. The
texts in which it has come down to US
vary greatly among themselves; it has
no connection with the context, and its
style differs totally from that of John.
On the other hand, it is found in the
ancient uncial ID (Codex Beza); Jerome
in the fourth century, testfies that it
existed in his days, in many mani
scripts, both Greek and Latin. Au-
gustine, about the same date, charges
that some persons of weak faith had
expunged it lest it sh ould seem to con-
done sin; and according to Eusebirs,
Papias, in the early part of the second
century, was familiar with it. In this
state of the evidence, the reviewers
have not felt justified in rejecting it
from the text, but have inserted it in
brackets. They have followed thhis plan
of putting matters into brackets con-
cerning which there is the slightest
| doubt
PAUL AND AGRIPPA.
The revised translation of Acts XVI,
| %, which the common version renders,
Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian, will knock away the under
pinning of many eloquent homilies.
| Agrippa did not mean that he was so
moved by Paul's argument that he was
almost ready to embrace the Christian
faith On the contrary, his words are
sarcastic; and their general sense is, as
Dean Afford gives it, i am not so cas-
| ily to be made Christian of as thou
supposest;' you offer very scanty ar
gument for so great change as that
from a jew to Christian The revis-
ers' rendering strikes US as clumsy,
though it is correct: with but little
persuasion thou wouldst fain make me
Christian
PAUL's JUSTIFICATION.
Another important change is made
at First Corinthians, iv, 7. In the
New Testament to which we have been
accustomed, Paul is mads to say: For
L know nothing by myself; yet | am
not hereby justified; but he that judg-
eth me is the Lord This translation
is subject at the present day to grave
Misunderstanding 1t means, accord
ing to The present use of the English
language, that the apostle was depend
ent for all his knowledge on the favor
of God. The true sense is brought out
in the revised translation; For | know
nothing against myself; yet am | not
hereby justified What Paul meant
to say was that, although he was not
conscious of having done any wrong to
the Corinthians, still, after all, it was
only God that could t'uly judge and
thoroughly justify him. When the
| King James version was made, the
proposition by was frequently used as
synonym for against so that the
translation at that time was perfectly
justiiable, but this meaning of the
word has long since been dropped, and
none except scholars could gain the
correct idea from the text as it has
stood in the English Bible for nearly
three centuries. This is one instance
of many in which the work of the re-
visers will be found to be of Immense
value in altering translations so as to
make the words of the Testament con-
form to the usage of the present age.
THE BLIND MAN AND GOOD SHEPHERD.
John tx: II. Here the authorized
version is scarcely Ineligible. They
say unto the blind man again, What
sayest thou of him, that he hath open
ed thine eyes p The meaning is made
plain in the revised version merely by
inserting 'in,' thus: They say there
fore unto the blind man again, What
sayest thou of him, in that he opened
thine eyes? And he said, He is a
prophet
John X: IA, 15. The connection
between these two verses is totally de-
stroyed in the authorized version, which
runs thus: Il am the good Shepherd,
and know my sheep, and am known of
mine As the Father knoweth me,
even so know | the Father and lay
down nv life for the sheen The verses