The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1881-06-03
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
LFrom the Mobile Rcgistcr.l !

revised version of the New Testament
The edition is authorized by tht
American Committee of Revision, and
published with their imprimatur. a
great many OF the Protestant laity and
clergy have feared that the emenda-
tions therein contained, would seriously
detract from its authority as an in
spired canonical compilation, but the
departures from tho authorized version
are all ODE traced to one or the other of
two causes-eithcr to Il change of the
Greek text, which it was found neces-
sary to adopt, or toa change of transla-
ton, which Stricter fidelity to the
original seemed to require.
Ihe number OF various readings in
the New Testament has been differen-
tly estimated since the authorized edi-
ton OF the reign of King james. Every
new manuscript which is discovered
increases the amount, and every more
accurate examination of already known
manuscripts tends to the same result.
AS a Proof OF this assertion we NAV
state that there are today no less than
10000 various readings in the New
Testament. The success of the new
edition will accordingly be measured
by Its merits in the absence OF any
ecclesiastical authority to impose it
upon the faithful of the Protestant
world. They have simply to accept
the Judgment Of the reviSers, and in
| case Of the former, to blindly place
their faith in the learning, ability and
intentions of the companies of cholars
who have been ut work for the last ten
years discussing the great pathological
questions Of the Bible. The numerous
alternatives i'll the revision itself in
crease the doubt in the minds Of the
GO rpl a nal
the New Testament trttei'-an unfor-
tunate word to use, for the comparative
in the case OF Holy Writ is hardly
SauctiOnablc.
The Eng!ish revision of the Holy
Scriptures now in common use, was
prepared on the basis of previous YER
sio:'s, by Il large body Of divines and
scholars of the Church of England, ap-
pointed by King James the First,
whose name the edition bears. He
never gave the work any pecuniary
aid or any sanction after it was finish
ed. It appeared in London in 1911
with an adulatory dedication to the
English monarch, and a long and learn
ed preface by one of the translators.
/ superseded the other English transI-
tations by its superior merits, without
formal authorization other by X ing,
Irivy Council, or Parliament The
same willprobably be the case with the
present edition., though there is already
considerable opposition to it's introduce
ton and adoption by American Episco-
palians. 1t will have to grow upon the
public as an cruditc production and
will probably in the end become the
accepted version. Those who are chary
Of tho sacred inspiration of Holy Writ
may nevertheless rest in peace, for, as
a lnnrnol f.f
essential changes are very few, and the
changes not essential"
Probably the only great change
which will strike the reader, and which
seems to have been Incorrectly cabled
prior to the publication of the revised
edition, is the entire omission of tho
doNology in the Lords prayer at Matt.
6: 13. The rcvisers maintain that the
reasons for this omission are conclusive.
First, the clause is not found in any OF
the great UncialS, which contain the
passage. Secondly, it is not noticed by
the earliest fathers in their cXpositions
of the Lords prayer. True, Chrysos.
tom and others recognize it in the
fourth century, but this cannot out
weigh the fact that it is wholly un-
noticed by Origcn in the third. The
internal evidence, too, is somewhat
against it, rs an interruption of the
context. THERE'S, indeed, one wcighty
argument in its favor. 1t is found in
most of the ancient versions, such as
the IEthiopic, the Armenian, tho
Gothic, and, above all, the Syriac. But
these gentlemen maintain that they
can not insist on the authority of tho
Syriac in support Of the passage. Be
sides, it docs not exist in the Latin
Nuigatc, very important witness.
Upon tho whole, criticism, say the
rcvisera, must pronounce decidedly
against the clause as forming part of
the original text; and it is, accordingly
not admitted into the revised version
4 representative Of the New York
Times interviewed some Of our leading
a mcrican divine5 and they nearly all
seem to be strangely cautious and un-
prepared to decide whether or not to
accept the revision and introduce it in
their pulpit. The great pclitico. con-
sular- divine DIR. Newman, is of the
opinion that there arc other Roctri,tul
changes which the rcviser "lacknd the
courage to Hndcrtake''--so also thinks
Bob ingcr5oll. But, says the inter