The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-01-18

ing was proposed, the statement of the
pros and cons was left to Drs SERVE
ner and Hort and then, incontinently,
the body voted to change or not to
change the Greek, and the majority pre-
vailed. But this process, our author
says, is entirely too trough and ready
to decide questions so intricate and deli
cate as these critical emendations. Whole
volumes have been written on the criti-
cism of a few verses Evidences for and
against reading" from manuscripts,
ancient versions, dictionaries, quotations
of fathers, are often so numerous and
nice that days of mature reflection may
be needed on single point. The actual
result is that this new edition of the
Greek, which the revisers follow, has
changed 5000 words of the received
Greek textl
Now, our author asserts first, that in
thus constructing new text of the Greek,
the revisers violated their own instruc-
tions Aagrantiy. They were ordered to
make " revision of the authorized YER
sion, and "to introduce into the text as
few alterations as possible, consistent with
faithtulness." But, he charges, they have
made 5000 alterations, and mostly on
wanton and invalid grounds.
He complains also that, in many places,
suspicion against verses or passages is
uselessly and wantonly suggested by mar
ginal notes on what they did not dare to
expunge. For instance, twelve whole
verses at the end of Marks gospel are
printed with gap before them, and this
note is placed IN the margin The two
oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other
authorities, omit from verse to the end. ="
But he asks: Why disturb the faith of
readers by this mischievous note, when
Biblical critics know that the two manu-
scripts which omit these twelve verses
are certainly erroneous here, and the
verses are supported by all the evidence,
except this omission of two very corrupt
documents?
Our author asserts that the new text
followed by the revisers has been devised
on the most mischievously erroneous
principles of criticism. The new and
vicious fashion introduced by Lachman,
and passionately followed by Tregelles
and Tischendorf, has prevailed, of as
Stunning that a few manuscripts written
in square or capital Greek letters (unciaD
the Alexandrine, the Vatican, the Paris,
the Bean, and the Sinai manuscript late
ly discovered by Tischendorf, but espe-
cially three of these, the second, fourth
and fifth, shall be held the oldest and
most authentic copies, and the reading
supported by these three, or any two of
them, shall prevail against all other. WI; -
nessss, w6 6f aaSSEotafi Ea6 This
gled craze for the uncials " our author
utterly resists. He asserts that their be-
ing in square letters does not prove them
more correct, but the contrary; that they
contradict each other as much as they
do the received text, that is in thousands
of places, fact fatal to their eminent
authority as witnesses to what the true
reading was; that the Goddess Bezae and
Sinaiticus, which the revisers most affect
are by all odds the meanest and most cor
rupted that the rules on which their
witness is used are utterly deceptive.
Hence, he declares the Greek text fol-
lowed by the revisers is " vastly more re-
mote from the inspired autographs of the
evangelists than any which has appeared
since the invention of printing" And
he concludes his essay by declaring
again Its w 6SJCOJG anu nave
x constructed a text demonstra-
bly, more remote from the evangelic veri-
ty than any which has ever yet seen the
light"
The author also devotes large part
of his space to considering particular
verses or words, which the revisers have
either expunged out of the New Testa-
ment, or served with notice to quit
by hanging on them one of their mar
ginal notes of suspicion. OF these he dis
cusses, with amplitude of learning, TWEEN
ty-seven cases in the Gospels, and the all
important one of l Tim. iii: Is, where
they expunge the word "God" Gin "God
manifest in the flesh y. He claims that
in every case they have decided wrong
and against the valid evidences.
The tendency of the essay is to re-assert
the authority of our old, received Greek
text, not indeed as absolutely correct,
but as far more so than the one the re-
visers follow, and as generally worthy Of
the greatest confidence.
While the author does not raise the
question of their accuracy in translating
Greek into English, it is evident that, if
his proofs are valid, he has loosened the
very foundation under their whole work.
If fhavy houo oor~,,,4o1 H. -