New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-05-20

which, as Dean Afford observes, would naturally
suggest some such ending, and make its insertion
almost certain in course Of time"
The suggestion made by Professor Lighttoot in his
admirable essay New Testament Revision pub
shcd in 1871. is carried out by the rcyisers in tho
case Of two long and important passages Mark xvi,
0-20, and John viii. 3-11. Professor Lightfoot
speaks Of these belonging to class Of passages
(which touch Christian sentiment. or history, or
morals, and which are affected by tcxtual differ
ences" In treating these he suggests that they be
placed in brackets for the purpose Of showing, not
indeed that they contain untrue narratives but that
evidence is against their being regarded integral
portions Of the gospels in which they occur Against
the passage at the conclusion Of Mark are the facts
that il is wanting from the two oldest manuscripts
that important patrstc authorities testify that it
was not written by Mark nor found in the best
copies and that the style is not that Of the Eyangc
list, seventeen words occurring within twelve verses
which are nowhere else used by Mark. In favor of
1t is urged the improbabilty Of Marks abruptly ter
his narrative at verse s, and that it Is
cited Ivy Ircngus in the second century which, how
ever, though it goes far to confirm its authority,
does not prove its authorship.
The passage in John concerning the woman taken
in adultery has long been battle-ground for
eXpositors Concerning it, il may be said generally
that the incident hannoni7cs perfectly with tho
spirit and dealing Of Christ that if il did not occur
it might have occurred. and that our Lords treat
MT ( of the case was just what we should expect
fl Him. Every New Testament reader we think,
would be glad to have its gcnuincncss put beyond
question. Manuscript authority is against 1t. 1t
is not found in any one of tho frs-rate uncials,
nor in the ancient versions; nor is there evidence
that it was known 10 Origcn. ChrySo,tom and
others Of the early fathers. Even many Of tho
mauuscriptS which do contain il have il marked -
doubtful The texts H. which il has come down 10
MS vary greatly arioug Themselves; il has no con-
ucction with to coptcNi and is STYLE differs
t"tallv from that f john On th~ Other hand,
il is found in tho ancient unciIl - lCodcV
I&1a1; Jerome. In the fourth century, tc,tics
that it existed in his DAYS. in many manuscripts,
both Greek and Latin. Augustine. nhout the ,are
date. charges that somc persons # weak la!th had
cxmnrcd il lest it sh"nlI seem To- conlonc sin and
according To EuScha.. rapias. i'll The carly part Of
tic second century, Wa, familiar with il. IN this
state II Che e, ilruor the reviewers have i.' felt
justified in rejecting it from the text, hut Lave i-
serted il in h;a'lrt>.
We can only a!udc N the change in Timothy ill.,,
i where. Instead Of God was mauif.,, uth"tr~h'
the revised version has. " He Who was uauii'>trd
in tie flesh. The decision rs &" the trlc reading of
the text turns largely upon lie question whether 90
the AcNaudGinr manus ript, "A single iittlr line
which converts ihr Greek INTO TIL. Is the work Of
the original tla,sciihcr or tie addition Of later
hand.
10 the passage. 7. John. y. :. < we havc already
alluded Ne defender ~ it, g"nuiucur~~, says Or
Roberts. will probably arise in ia" future. Bat
the literary history 10 which il has given r>c viii
not be forgotten. small library might Zoe formed
Of the books and pamphlets which hay" been written
for or against the words SIR Isaac Newton wrote
against their gcnuincncsS, and Persons letters to
Archdcacon Travis. IN l7NS. virtually settled th"
case against the passage The r"vi~'r~ hav" omitted
it without line even on the margin To indicate that
II had ever been admitted to place in the sacred
text.
AMTNpMFNTS or TRANSLATION.
We now come to the changes arising from an
amended translation. There are not very many in
stances IN which the authorized version has posi-
tivcly mistaken the import Of the original The
translators turned to good account tho iabors of
many ablo predecessors: nevertheless they have
erred In some instances. For example. in Matthew
XIV \ the authorized version SAYS Of the daughter
Of Tcrodias that she asked for the BlptIsts head,
" being before instructed Of her mother" Tho
translators were probably m,lrd hy the "prr-
monita " the vugl'"; but the proposition ir, ~
the Greek "rr"h'hASihriH Is not pr'p">ihuh ~
time. but OF place; meaning not pr"'h'~iN' b"'
forward Thus onr version NOT Only gives . 'Ai''
IMPRESSION. hnt blinds the r'ad"I t. H." 'lih' ',"
OF Il rcdrc'nng TRAIT IA li"r'd:a'' "'hch mac no
wanton creature shrink from tn" aNiui decd 'iI
require I" Doe urged on 10y her m"'hrf Hence i"'
revision rightly Translates " Shc 'ci"S iut i"r""id
10y her mother
J" LIKE ILL., - f'S''a' "' ''''ns ''''n 10 ''
{ q 4 a.
o''"' '"'''y ''I'' " 't'' '"' '''' '''''' '''
jesus h''"''" WIZ" III "., '' ''" '''". vs.
'hiT'y wars "' "''. ~ '"' '''"'' W we '''
hPurau"h III Luxe N.' '"' - N''" IN 'h' '"''.''
version qut" nisfclir>rL'- thr iA'i I'''I ai'' H'
companions "or" heavy with Sleep " AMI "h'h