The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-20
For the Central Presbyterian
The Revised Version of the New
Testament.
BY REV. H. C. ALEXANDER, D. D.


1t was virtually conceded in the last
number that the majority of the Bible
texts bearing on the doctrine of the deity
of Christ are so presented by the critical
editors as to bear Negatively at least) in
favor of those whc attempt to deny that
doctrine. This concession ought proba-
bly, to be retracted. 1t would, at all
events, appear to be an over-statement of
the matter as the case stands to-day
Tregelles in his Account of the Printed
Text of the Greek Testament, devotes his
fifteenth section to discussion of " some
passages of dogmatic Importance" The
ones he selects are the FIVE most cele-
brated places where the variation in the
readings has been held to affect the ques-
ton of our Lords divinity. The three
principal of these are John v: 7; l
Tim. iii: l6; and Acts Xxx: %. These
three he gives up to the adversary; or,
to express the thing more accurately, he
gives up l John v 7, in any form, and
IN regard to the other two passages he
admits that the reading which in each
case is sustained by the weight of author
lty is the one in which the doctrine of
the proper deity of Christ is less strongly
asserted.
One of these scriptures has, notwith-
standing been since wrested from the
hands of the profane hereto This is
that profoundly interesting passage Acts
Xxx: %; where the question turns on the
word God" There are three readings
here, and three only, worthy of attention
One is, 90 the Church of God" the read
ing of the tertus receptuS, and tie one
which bears decisively against the Socin-
ians and Arians. A second is, the
Church of the Lord" which is the read
ing Of the Vulgate, and till latterly has
been the choice of modern critics, and
was preferred by Tregelles himself
Third is, the Church of God and the
Lord" which is the reading of the Com
plutensian Polyglott and Of the mass of
cursives, and would have been the re
ceived reading too had not Erasmus and
Stephens happened to reject it. 1t has
however, comparatively speaking, so in
terror support from the greater wit
nesses and is so obviously composite or
"conAate" reading Gas they are called,
Z. e., made up of two or more others), that
there is a general agreement to give it
the go by. When Tregelles issned his
book the Sinaitic Manuscript had not
been brought to light. The two most
venerable documents (the Sinaitic and
the Vatican) here unite in giving their
attestation to the reading of our common
Bibles, the Church Of God" Follow
ing their peculiar critical principles West.
colt and Hort evidently regarding the
rival reading as of Western orfgin) &C.
cept this cogent testimony and accord
ingly print after the receptuS. They
however Surmiae that perhaps" the
original form a.ay have been this: Feed
the Church OF God, which he bath pur-
chased with the blood of his own Son. =
Their conjecture is that the omission OF
the word son (atlou) at the end of the
verse may have been due to print
tive error"-from the very nature of the
supposition antedating all indications in
the way of documentary evidence. This
Is admitted to be mere speculation. The
weight Of documentary authority and OF
critical canons alike is now believed to
be in favor of the reading that is followed
In King James's Bible and also in the
Revision. The wagering balance is thus
redressed, and determined Con strictly
critical principles) in favor OF truth and
orthodoxy; and Of the five vexed places
three now range themselves unequivocal.
ly on the side of the champions of the
Nicene creed, viz: John il 1871 Peter
iii IS; and Acts Xxx %.
1t was mentioned in the paper which
preceded this one that there was one pas.
sage which would have to be considered
separately; not only on account Of It's
signal Importance, but also because III
their treatment Of this passage the re.
visers have put themselves in such an
attitude as to provoke assault, and to de.
mand vindicaton, on wholly different
grounds from any which have yet been
referred to; an attitude indeed so bold
and hazardous, that if they fail here their
whole cause is manifestly ruined. This
passage has been once before adverted tc
in this series Of essays, and has been dis
cussed at length by two Of your valued
contributors. 1t is Q Timothy iii. 16
The new version here is Every scrip
ture God-inspired is also profitable" etc
The Testimony Of the Heavenly Witnesses
The clause in verse s, {" and these three agree il
"a 10 La