The Revised New Testament.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3935, 9 August 1881, Page 2

The Revised New Testament.

The following is the conclusion of Mr Neill's lecture:—

The first that we may notice is the punctuation. This is not a part of the text, but it has in some cases a very important bearing on the meaning of the text. As, for example, in that passage about the malefactor on the cross, which in our old version reads "And he said uuto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom, and Jesus said unto him, Verily 1 say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." The new revision stands, "And

said, Jesus, remember me when thou coyest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to day si alt thou be with me in Paradise." Lais passage is so punctuated by some asto read, " Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Thus by putting the comma after this day, instead of before it is maintained that our Lord did not certify the malefactor that on that day both would be in Paradise but merely assured him in the midst of his suffering that he should at some time be with him in Paradise. At-ainst this fanciful change the new revision is quite as decided as the old, though ihe new differs frem the old in six points in these two short verses. Another place may be noticed where the margin gives quite a different sense from the text by a change in the punctuation. In John 1., 3, the text in the new version reads, " All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." For which the margin has, "All things were made through Him ; and without Him. was not anything made. That which hath been made was life in him." The reviser assure us that great care has been bestowed on the punctuation, so that along with the marginal readings close heed should always be given to this part of the revision, as it is a part that may easily escape os. I may mention, in connection with this, that some of the newspapers which have given the new revision have made on the average, about one mistake in each verse, and these mistakes were chiefly in the punctuation.

The revisers inform us that they have given " what is sometimes called the heavier system of stopping, or, in other words, that system which, especially for convenience in reading aloud, suggests such pauses as will best ensure a clear and intelligent setting forth of the true meaning of the words."

Another point which .deserves great attention is the use of italics. We know that many popular notions of certain passages are founded on the italics and not on the text simply. A notable instance may be found in- that Terse in Job, " I know that my Redeemer liveth," &c., or in John vii, 39—But this he spoke of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. This the former translators render " for the Holy Ghost was not yet given," which is certainly going beyond the text, for the purpose of avoiding what seemed to the translators an absurdity, but which some think absolutely correct as the text stands, believing that the meaning of the passage is, that the Holy Spirit, or '' the Spirit" simply, as the new version has it, was the consequent of rue glorification of Jesus Christ, or of the Humanity being glorified in perfect barmcny and unity with the Divinity. In some rases the itrlics are necessary to make the Greek form of expression clear to us without a freer translation than it would be thought .wise to give. In some cases, however, the reviser*, both past and present, in giving italics, overstep their province and become expositors. This is a good thing if the exposition is correct, but not if it be faulty. An instance of this may be mentioned in the new revision of the Lord's prayer, where the revisers strike out a new path for themselves, and haul in the Devil in italics. This has provoked very general opposition on the part of learned aid unlearned. I see that one of our most le. rned English bishops who was himself, if I mistake Dot, one of the Eevision Committee, but who was, I suppose; in the minority in this matter, has published a little book on this very point, viz., on the new revision having inserted the word one in italics after the phrase " deliver us from the evil." 1 may here at this point, though somewhat out of place under the subject of italics give the Lord's Prayer as rendered in the new revision. In Mat/ it stands thus:—" Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy na:ne. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

In Luke it reeds thus:—" Father, Hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom couje, Give us day by day our daily bread, And forgive us our sins, for we ourgelves also forgive every one that i# indebted to us, And bring us not into temptation." In the margin however, we fiad " many ancient authorities read, • Our Father which art in heaven,' and 'Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth,' and also, ' But deliver us from the evil one, or from evil." In both cases the doxology " For 1 thine is the kingdom &c.," is left out, but in Matthew it is seated that many authorities, some of them aicient, but with variations, add, " For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen." Our present revisers have been sparing in the use of italics, and yet, to my mind, they have used them in cases where it would have been better had they left t'je English text as a simple translation of the Greek text, As a rule which will apply to all translators, the present ones as well as the past, the more closely they stick to the work of translation the better their work is, and the more the province of the commentator is encroached upon, j the more numerous are the mistakes which are made. * , f * # ■ * # * * Having drawn your attention to some of the outer or more prominent things in connection with the new revision, and I hope, in these points, directed you so that you will compare carefully the new work with the old, using your own judgment, if you know anything about the passage under consideration, so that you will not blindly accept it even on the authority of such a learned body of men as has been sitting at Westminter either lately or at sny other time, we shall next evening eater more into the meanings for changes, and try and. examine if the revisers have done their vrork well accordiug to the rules they laid down for themselves. We sliail also notice and criticise a very iinvmrtunt point in connection with the new revisit), jfue different readings adopted

by the English and American Committees* As far as I have yet been able to examine, I believe the American Committee has given the more trustworthy readings. And if this really proves so, then we may certainly expect two Bibles, one containing the readings at present given by the Oxford edition and another edition giving the American readings. The Americans have already brought forward the pos« sibility of this. In any case we may rest assured that nothing can be done against the truth but for the truth.