Rovision of the New Testament.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3946, 22 August 1881, Page 2

Rovision of the New Testament.

At the Presbyterian Church last night, the liev. S. J. JNeill delivered his third lecture on the above as follows :—

The main part our subject to-night is the consideration of some of the more important changes which have been made in the revision of the JNew Testament ; and the bearing which some of these changes have upon theological questions. It would be a most unlikely thing if, after the lapse of nearly 300 years, between King James' version and the one just completed, no considerable changes were to be observed ; seeing that King James' translators had so few good authorities to rely upon, and the present revisfirs have so many. That would be truly the most wondeful of all miracles if the the old M.S.S. which have come to light lately showed the same readings as are shown by tho comparatively modern M.S.S. which were, available in 1611. That, however, is not the case, and we uiust be prepared in this matter for what experience and common sense would lead us to expect, a number of changes, of more or less magnitude, some of them affecting important doctrines which men have held, while others are of minor importance. These changes do not come suddenly upon those wno have been accustomed to investigate the text of Scripture. There is, perhaps, not a single important change made by our present revisers which was not known for some years- to all scholars. But those changes were not made popular; now they are made popular in the new revision; that is the only difference. Therefore, to any one who would stumble or quibble about alterations, we would reply: these have not started into existence now, though they have only lately become known to you. Perhaps one of the beat known, as well at! one of the most iuipor-

tant of all the changes, is that in regard ] to the Trinity, in Ist John, v., 7. This passage was regarded at the time of King James' version as one of the most clear and distinct proofs of the Trinity, and as such it appears in oar own Confession of Faith, and in similar articles of belief. It is idle .here to speculate what our exact position in regard to this doctrine now should be if this passage had been, known when our present version was being made, or when our articles of belief were being formed, as it is now known to be of no authority whatever. The doctrine of the Trinity was no doubt held before this text was inserted in the New Testament; but, for all that, it is very evident that this champion text has, in nearly all cases, given a moulding influence to the minds of men, so that they have seen Trinitarianism in the Bible where else it might not have been so visible. For instance, you will find that the proofs in our Confession of Faith are given in this order: First, this passage— Ist John, v., 7 ; then the account of the Spirit of God descending upon Christ at his baptism; the voice which said, " This is My beloved Son;" then thej|baptismal formula; and then the form of words in the Benediction. Now, it is no part of our lecture tonight to discuss this doctrine, but it is part of our duty to show how this passage gives boldness to others which might not stand out in the same strong light unless headed by '• There are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." (rod calls Solomon his son: "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son." Israel is also called God's son—" His first born." The expression in the second Psalm, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee," is generally applied to Christ only, but some regard it as said of David, in the first instance ; and this has the support of the express declaration concerning David in the 89th Psalm: " I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth." In the New Testament Christ refers with apparent approval to the belief that all are sons of God, quoting from, •' I have said ye are God, and all of you are children of the Most High."—Ps. 82. •• If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scriptures caDnot be broken), say ye of him whom the Father ha.th sanctified (or consecrated) and sent inwthe world, thou blasphemesfc, because I said, lam (the) Son of God." And in many places we read to this effect, that "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God." Thus we see that these passages which have been quoted as proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity, in which Christ is called the Hod of God, are very much on a par with similar texts which speak of Solomon, David, and others as being the son or " first born" son of God. But these, when applied as proofs along with a passage which is clear and strong, such as the " Three Heavenly witnesses," assume at once a positive distinctness, as ciphers do when a unit is placed before them. You will say, is the doctrine of the Trinity upset then by the new version? No, we reply, it is not; only this text which was for some time regarded as the best proof for the doctrine is upset, is indeed driven out of existence altogether. There is, as we pointed out some months ago, a light in which God is manifested to our minds as a Trinity, not the gross absurd form which it often assumes— which is, while seeking cover under an old Latin terminology, neither nwe nor less than three distinct Gods wlfd are prayed to the one after the other. Dr Shaw, a standard expositor on the Confession of Faith, tries to correct what he sees to be a popular misconception on this point by sayiug, "' The term person when applied to God is not to be uuderstood in the same sense as when applied to human beings " ; and that " three human beings have the same specified nature, but three Divine persons have the same numerical nature." That "we do not teach that there are three distinct essences mysteriously conjoined—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit possess, each of them .separately from the others, a divine nature and divine perfections," but " that there is a distinction in the Godhead to which there is nothing similar in creatures." I have made this digression, as it is of great consequence to us in this and in the matter of all great truths, that we should see them as necessary truths, and therefore as prior to all revelations. What care you or I if in the new revision, or in any revision, there should be nothing to prove the being of the divine Life and Kuler, and our immortality in Him ; what if there were nothing iv the Bible to tell us that the sun gives life to the earth and that the earth revolves round it, indeed there is nothing in the Bible to tell us this latter, but apparently the opposite, yet shall we waver for a moment iv our —I shall not say belief, but iv our consciousness of them on that account ? Assuredly not. Therefore we can with all the more calmuess discuss and discord this champion text for the doctrine of the Trinity. Of this passage Dr Scrivener says '"It may be doubted whether a single person now liviug who is capable of forming an intelligent judgment of critical subjects believes or professes to believe in the genuineness of that interpolated gloss, kuown as the ' Text of the Three Heavenly witnesses.''' The learned Porsou says, '' In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two, one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book ; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, and even from mauy of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the 13th and most of the Latins down to the middle of the Bth century ; if in spite of all these objections it be still genuine, no part of scripture whatsoever can be proved either genuine or spurious," This powerful and sweeping statement of Porson remains perfectly unaffected by anything discovered since he wrote. It sums up the matter so that even a person who is no scholar may see that this passage has no more authority than if it appeared in a news creating society paper of this day. We cannot pass from this without remarking that it affords a melancholy spectacle of human nature tied to an opinion. When any sane man should for a moment uphold a Scripture which was without any MSS. authority, was not quoted by a single Greek Father, nor by any of the great Latin writers of the 4th century. Still sadder when we can trace its insertioa into such a work as the printed Peshito version ; it shows clearly that there was a tendency in men who had to do with sacred thing? which led them to put into the Scripture what they wished to appear there. It is i hardly necessary to say that the passage

does not occur in the new revision, and that there is not even a note ia the margin to show it that had ever been there.