Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1881-05-29

word translated edifying is "oikonomia,"
meaning 81 economy" or dispensetion -
but the copyist carelessly mistook the ''n"
for Cd and read the word "iokodornia,"
which means 81 building" or ''edifying,"
and the transIators, therefore. correctly rem
dered ''godly eilfying." The true text
being ascertained. the revised version rem
ders, The dispeasation of God which Is III
faith"
Secondly, to words of like ending III the
manuscripts. Suppose an English feater
transcribing the fifth chapter OF Matthew
from our common version. Both the oth
and 9Th verses end with the word God.
aud it would be one of the easiest and most
natural of mistakes for his eye TO light Oh
that word at the end of verse 8 instead OF
verse s. and SO TO go directly on to the 10th
verse, emitting the 9th This has been Il
fruitful cause Of omission in the best Greek
manuscripts. For instance, in Ms. B., the
47th verse of Matthew xii. has been omitted,
obviously for the reason that both the 4Gth
and 47th verses end with the word 'lalesai'
g to speak; and the copyist's eye, as he
finished the 4Gth verse, resting on the word
at the end of the 47th, passed directly on
on to the 18th verse. emitting the fifth alto
gether. SO, the passage l. JOHN, IL, %,
viii be found III italics in our English Bibles,
| as being of doubtful authority. He that
acknowledged the Son hath the Fathers
also" Reference 10 the Greet text VIII
| show that the three last words i'll both
clauses of the text are the sanction
patera echei thus leading transcribers to
| overlook the second clause which now stands
| in the revised version.
| IL
| lar.e5 written on the margins Of manuscripts,
were sometimes inadvertently or intention
ally introduced into the text by transcribers.
| In the fifth chapter Of John, for example,
the fourth verse, about the angel troubling
the pool of Bethesda, has been omitted
| from the revised version. il having been Il
marginal explanation which the copyist III
serted IN the text Most Of these errors
occur in the Gospels.
Error would also arise from the uncor-
scious working of the copyi5t's mind on
the passage. Thus, i'll Luke, xiv, %,
our English Bible read, ''praiaing and bless
ing God the blessing" having been
added i,Y the copyist, and consequently be
ing omitted from the revised version.
INTENTIONAL CHANGES.
There are good many of these. some
arising from the eopyist's adopting a com
mon for an uncommon word. or to improve
| grammatical construction, or Tor the sake o.
euphOny, or to remove apparent difficulties
rs III Mark l., 2, where the revised version
gives, As it is written in Isaiah tht
prophet;' bus as the succeeding quotation
Is partly from Malachi, the words of Ill.
Evangelist had been corrected into = As il il
written il the prophets" Additions We're
also made with a view of increasing the III
a.
revised version Omits from l. Corinthians vi
20 the words and in your spirit, which
are Gods" and reads according TO tht
true text, "Glorify God therefore in you
BODY With a similar motive the word
- Who %aic not after the flesh but after tht
spirit were inserted in Romans viii, /
They are omitted from the revised version
: Another cause of various readings came
; from the practice among copyists of con
forming parallel passages, particularly III tn
| Gospels, to each other, at the expense o
7. true reading Of the older manuscripts, Thu
| the true reading at Mark l., Ii, is - Thol
= art my beloved Son, Ill Thee [ am wei
S pleased;' which had been changed to il
O | whom | am we'll pleased" to conform it t
! the text III Matthew Ill. T. Illustration
t might be found IL almost every chapter 0
, the first three evangelists. The same ten
dency appears III tbs Epistles. Thus, Col
a ossans J., II, was conformed to Ephesian
I l., I, 50 as to stand, In whom VIC have re
. demption through His blood, the forgive
ness OF sins" whereas the true reading is
In whom we have our redemption, the fo1
: | giveness Of our sins
/ Some changes were due to the bias or pref
T. | udces of the transcribers and largely. TN
+ doubtediy, interpolated to unite their doc
s trinal vieWs-a thing easily done in az az
I when there existed no cgnOns of criticisms
n and before the ant OF printing was known
$ One of the most famous Of these interpola
: tons was that of verses and ! of Y. John
: known as the three heavenly witnesses.
:, In the King James version they read:
II 'fFOr there are three that bear record i
q heaven, tie Father, the Word and the Hol
e | Ghost: and these three are one. And Their
= are three that bear witness in earth, tn
4 spirit, aud the water, and the blood; an
4 these three agree in one" None OF III
{ rlncal manuscripts contain these words
: none of the ancient versions represent them
aud none Of the fathers quote them, eve
n when arguing on the subject Of the Trinity
, But two OF the Greek manuscripts contai
e the verses, and these were transcripts frol
i the Latin Nuigatc. DR.. Roberts SAYS j
IS reference to these verses No defender {
= the genuineness Of First John, Y. ~, Wi
l. probably arise in the future. The contr'
n yersy re 5ardin9 the passage is finished, an
l, will never be renewed. And although Il
y voices of some jealous friends of ScIiptul
If haze been unwiseIy lifted up in defense
5 the three heavenly witnesses, yet so decit
II ediv have the minds Of all scholars no
: been made up as to the spurOusness OF IL
: words that they have been omitted III Il
n revised version without q line even on ii
1t margin to indicate that they had ever bee
IS admitted to place IN the sacred text
10 CHAsGEs BY AMENDED GREEK GRAMMAR.
Another series of changes hes resutC
from the correction Of mistakes in Gree
- grammar. These changes are very hume
- 0n5, and defy analysis by reason of the
~ frequency, their deheacy and their 6n0
=, trusiyeness Attention is paid to the di
q tinction between The Greek aorist and Il
NO. Greek perfect in the lenses of the verl
40 The Greel, imperfect has received its ep
=, cialized meaning, and the Greek prepOs
- tons are carefully Disseminated according
Wv their varions meanings in their ditferel
- grammatical constructions. Thus at Act
~ xix, 2 the meaning Of Paul is obscured |
= the rendering in the authorized edition
=, Have We received the Holy Ghost since
49, belioyadE' The true reading, as found
=, the revised version, is: Did ye recei
> -, the Holy Ghost when ye beheved?" i
- imperfect tense has also been translated