THE REVISFD NEW TESTAMENT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 157, 4 July 1881, Page 4

THE REVISFD NEW TESTAMENT.

[Auckland « Star.-'J At length the !otg - expected volume has reached us, and we Laateo to lay some a^co'int of it before nor readers. We .'hell omit all allusions io tbe mplhofis (he revisers have pursued, end indeed ail reference (o tbe history and progress of the revieioo, for these points have been fully discussed many times during the past Jen years. Our purpose is »b far a9 possible to give infcronation that will be iibr to the mejorify. The e iiion before ue emanates from the Oxford University presa and is a e!e>irly printed, neatly got op, royal 16nio. volume of 420 pagfp. The text; ia not divided info verfea, bofc icto p?.raor&pha with, however, the ol>i arran^rfmeDt of chapters tnd vereee iocicate" at the side for the Bake of convenience. At lha comnieEeeinent there ''s ■'» lo®S preface, uaeianed, and dated 1 Jl:b November lest, which gives coricisej'.v ihe story of the movement whi"li !e« to the revUon an(t the methods adopted. At the end is given a list of readings au.J renderings j which (he .American Committee have preferred. Quotations fro/n poetical bocks of the Old Testament are given as they should be in me«rift,sl form, Another feature is the number of valuable foof-DOtes in the took. These refer cbiefly Jo alternative tranelajione, and to iexufol questions very usefo.l for thosß wl o fcave uct tbe opporjunity of consuifiag works on such subjects. As Before, a number of words cot codt&iaed io the origics 1 , but necessary for tbe afirdefslarjoios of various passn^e«, are printed to italics. But this, it i? scarcely necessary to say, is a matter of intricacy cod difficulty; ond the tendency has been to- dioiiuiah rnthur than to increase words so tMstinguished. With theEe iniroducfory remarks we plunge at rme in mediae* w. The first point to which we csJi attention consists in certain elteraliass in the text. Since the Authorised Vsrsion of 1611 (to which we shall refer as A.V.) w»8 i§?ued. impxrtp.nt MSS,hßve baen dieco^red, tLose known befoie hive been recr9 accurately ecruHinised and collated, and, in short, itsrceDEe strides have been made in this branch of Biblical knowledge. Hence macy alterations ia the fezt were to be expected ; although it must be clearly understood £uah alferatiooa though numerous are chiefly of tbe smallest importance. Still, &s accoTtcj was the aim, they could not be neglected. We turn at oace to the lest last chapter of St. Mark, where (v, D to the end) is a paesnge omitted by two of the oldest MSS. (he Sioaitic &nd VsticaD) aod rejected oy those profound scholars Tiscbendorf and Alford. In tbe Revised EJi ion it remains, but marked eff from the context, tbe reason of which is explained in a note. Alec clearly marked off and placed in brackets is the well-known etory of the woman taken in adultery (John vil 58 to viii-11). This again is not found iu Boms of tbe oldest MSS. e.g , the Vatican and Sinßitic; and Alford, Tiscbendorf and Tregelles are in favour of its omisjio!?. Of coursp, the well known passage (1 John, v. 7 snd 8) respectina tbe "heavenly witnesses,' does cot appear ; it bts no MSS. authority to support it. Verse 59 of John viii now reeds, " They took up s'onea therefore (o Cf.at at him; but Jtsue hid himself, and went out of the temple." It will be noticed that tbe words "going tb»o3gh the midst ol them, and eo prssed by" are omitted; tbe weight of evidence is against them though they are found io tbe Alexandrine MS. and naay others. The pseeoge about the angel and the pool of Betbes.la (John v. 4) has been touch debated, and we Gnd it left out of the R.E, There is some ancient evidence in its favor, however, as a foottote rem&iks. Luke xxiv-12 (desoritirjg the tunning of Peter to Cbrisi'e I tomt) is retained, thought some ancient authorities omit il, eod Tificheodori woulJ seem ia favor of its rejection, i There has been much difference of opinion over Matthew xxiii, 14 (denconcing woe on the Scribes and Pharisee?) aad we do not find it in tbe E,E. Another doubtful passage is a clause in Luko i, 28 " Blessed art thou among women," epoktn of tbe Virgin Mary. It finds do place in tbe 8.E., though Griesb&cb, following tbe Alexandrine &Dd numerous otber ancient MSS., wculd have j retained it. Another noticeable omission consists in the words (Acts ix, 5 and 6), "It is bard for thee to kick j ag&iDSt the pricka. And be trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou bave me to do ? And tbe Lord seid onto him.' The best scholars ! with one consent agree to this omission, j which is clearly justified by MSS. i authority. Tbe words formed an early ' glosp, inserted to make the narrative of St. Paul's conversion more complete. We Lave not mentioned above all tbe important textual emendations which might be instanced, bnt these must suffice. We pass od to notice tbe course adopted by our revisers respecting archaic words, wbat they bave retained and wbat rejected. Tbe rule they followed is stated to be tbis, no archaisms, b&ve been removed except where either the meaning of the words was sot generally understood, tsr.tbe nature of tbe expression led to some misapprehension of the true sense of tbe passage. We find the relative " which " (now neuter, but masculine when tbe A.V. was published), retained in preference to " who." Tbe American revisers however, and in our bnmble judgment rightly, bave decided in favour of the modern term. So far as we have seec, tbe old forma " bath" and "— eth"(io "shewetb," "saileth," etc.,) have undergone no change. The word "cbßrger" i.e., a cieb, i B not altered in tbe story of the death of John tbe Baptist, but "charger" sureiy has ko l eaning for mod. m ears. " Damsel "i3 also retained, tbougb now certainly an antiquated term. Thr oid but weU-undtrßtcod phrase '* quick and dead" is rightly mantained. Turniug to Eph. ti, 15 we expected to discover a change, but are rather surprised to find none. We think that there ia some obscurity about the words ♦* preparation of the gospel of peace," and consider "readiness," (as Dean

Alford'a Testament has it,) would be an improvement. These ore evidences of the proper conservatism which has inspired the labours of the revisers throughout. To come to substitutions hswover. For " glistering," (Luke ix, 29,) we now read dazzling ;" for ' wax," (Luke xv, 19.) "grow," though in Hebrews xi, 34, the old word is kept, alongside of another change, however — " waxed mighty in war ;" for " prevent," (meaning " anticipate,") we have in Matt, xviii, 25, "spake first unto him," and in I Thess. iv, 15, " precede," both of them necessary alterations. In Romans i, 13, the A.V. reads " oftentimes I purposed to to come unto you, but was let hitherto ;" the R.E. has it " was hindered." The use of "let," in the sense of " hindrance," etill survives id the common phrase "without let or hindrance " In 11. Thess. ii., 7, for « let" is substituted " restrain." "Presently" and "by and by" have different meanings now from what they possessed in 1611, and consequently in Matt, xxi, 19' xxxvi, 53, xiii, 5»1, Lukexvii, 7, etc.* we find them replaced by "immediately," "even now," and "straightway." The change in the sense of the passages is however only apparent and not real. In St. Paul's journey to Jerusalem, as narrated in the A.V. (Acts xxi, 15), the expression is used "we took up our carriages." Carriages in old English meant also " baggage," and the latter word we find in the K.E. In acts xiii. 7, &c, Sergius Paulus is described more accurately as " proconsul " of Cyprus instead ot " deputy " as in the AV. About the word transalated " meat " in the A.V. our Revisors do not appear to have been consistent. In some places the modern "food" is substituted, while in the others the archaic form is retained ! (see Rom. xiv, 15, Heb. ix, 10, &c.) u Meat " has now a restricted meaning, being only used to signify « flesh," and its old force 13 seen only in such terms as "green meat." In Acts sxvii, 27 we used to have ifc "the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country ; " we now read " the sailors surmised." The first substitution is an improvement, but the latter not so judicious ; the element of novelty thus introduced seems so sudden as to amount to an incogruity. Bat no doubt we shall soon become reconciled ito this as to other changes. In Luke yii 4 for « besought him instantly " is read '• besought him earnestly."

J (To be continued.) J