The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-06-01

~ Hlay uOe nave DeeH lulIO-
duced into the copy under the impression
that they were part of the record. 1t is
the original document that was inspired,
and the object of textual criticism is to
restore that original text. 2. The Re-
visers of the English Bible have another
great task to perform they have to cor
rect the errors of the learned men who
made the translation into the Received
Version, in the reign of King James 1.
They often translated incorrectly. 8. An
other thing which the Revisers had to do
was to get rid of certain English wordsin
our present version whose meaning has
undergone change Under the first head,
we have materials now for ascertaining
the correct text which had not been dis
covered in the time of King James l., as,
for example, the great Sinaitic manu-
script of the New Testament obtained by
the learned Tischendorf in 1859 from the
Convent of st. Catherine on Mount Sinai,
older than any manuscript which was
known before, with the exception of the
precious manuscript in the Vatican Lii
brary. In fact, this very Vatican manu-
script was practically unknown until
Cardinal Mai prepared an edition of it in
1859; and not only so, King James's
Revisers (and the same is true of the re-
visers who preceded them) did not know
of the existence of the two next Oldest
manuscripts after the Vatican and the
Sinaitic, namely, the Alexandrian manu-
script and the Ephraem manuscript (both
of the fifth century,. Nor had textual
criticism as science then. been developed
the Griesbachs, the Lachmanns, the
Tischendorfs had not appeared. The
text of the Received Version is, there
fore, frequently at fault. AS an ex-
ample under this head, if the reader will
turn to l John V: 7, he will find the
well-known passage about the three that
bear witness in heaven. This passage is
no part of the Bible; it does not belong
there; it is universally given up as an
Interpolation introduced by some over
Jealous partisan, or, perhaps, from some
note on the margin, in the fourth or fifth
century. There is no earlier trace of it.
So of the doxology to the Lords Prayer,
For thine is the kingdom, the power,
and the glory This is not given in
Luke Xxi: pa; and it was not origi-
nally in Matthew wi: 9-13). 1t was no
doubt doxology of the early Church,
and, written on the margin, it csept into
the text. We may hate to give it up
but what we want is the words as re-
ported by the Evangelist-no more, no
less. We want the facts. Sentiment
afterwards. And as DIR. Broadus has
acutely observed in his admirable article
in the Religious Herald of May Goth, the
difference between the version of this
prayer in Luke and in Matthew (com-
pare them) shows conclusively that our
Lord did not intend to give us a form, of
prayer. Of all the books in the world,
of all the teachers in the world, the New
Testament and Jesus give the least coun-
tenance to mere phrases and forms.
Under the head (2) Errors of Transla-
ton, we may call attention to Timothy
vi: 5, Surprising that gain is godliness"
This is not the meaning of the Greek ;
the true rendering is, Surprising that
godliness is a way of gain" The first
does not make sense. Again in Cor.
iii: II, Paul, after having reminded the
Corinthian Christians that they were "the
temple of God," adds: " If any man de-
stroy the temple of God, him shall God
destroy" The Greek verb is the same
in each clause. But the Authorised Yer
sion reads thus " If any man defle the
temple of God, him shall God destroy"
Under head 8, Obsolete English Words,
we may note the word conversation
in James iii: Is. The Greek word means
conduct mode of life" So in Gal.
i: 13, aye have heard Of my converse
ton in time past" The new version
properly reads, "Ye have heard of my
manner of life in time past. In our
present Bible, we read in Acts xxi Is,
"And after those days we took up our
carriages, and went to Jerusalem. The