Revision of the New Testament.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3947, 23 August 1881, Page 3

Revision of the New Testament.

ME NEILL'SLECTUEE.—Continued

We cannot do more than glance at a single passage on one or two important doctrines. After this about the Trinity, stands, in point of importance, that famous passage about the Godhead of Christ, in Ist Timothy, iii., 16", which reads in the old version, " And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness : God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, re ceired up into glory." This has always been regarded as one of the most clear and satisfactory statements to show that Christ was God, for what fould be stronger than to say that " God was manifested in the flesh ?" Hera the new version reads, " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed onjn the world, Reived up into glory." You will notice tijfjge slight changes and one important cfljiige, from " God was manifest in the flesii " to " He who was manifested in the flesh." The alteration still leaves us to easily infer that Christ is spoken of, but' the point of proof is weakened that Christ was " God manifested in the flesh" This passage, writes Dr Scrivener, "has proved the very torture of critics." [The lecturer here explained how, from the fact that copyists were fond of using contractions, and that the contracted letters for " Theos" (God) very much resembled the word "Os," the pronoun who, a mistake had been madeiu translating who for the word God, and led to the old version of the Bible making the lest read, " God was manifested," &c. He then proceeds by saying :] There was "such a strong temptation here that we may forgive the copyists, but they have caused an incalculable amount of trouble. The versions, too, are against the received text, and most scholars are now agreed that the reading of theos, or, in English, " God was manifested." rests on no sufficient authority. Hence the new revision reads "Up who was manifested in the flesh," adding a note in the margin : " The word God in place of He who rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. J^ome ancient authorities Tead uMch." In both these coses therefore, in the ««se of the " Three heavenly witnesses," acd in ♦his passage, the former reading has been east &s'de as of no authority, and another for •yrhieh thers is authority inserted. On the other hand, as Bishop Moorbouse, of Melbourne, notes, thoutjh we lose a strong text in the case of Ist Timothy, iii., 16, we gain almost as much in the new version at the 13th verse of the 2nd chapter of Titus. This reads in the old version, "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." As that stands it would rather favour the supposition that the Saviour Jesus Christ was quite distinct from the "Great God.'' Now, in the new version it reads, " Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; " though the margin adds, " or of the great God and our Saviour." thus giving some weight, but not the chief weight, to the former reading of our English version. In Phil, ii., 7, the new version gives a truer reading, and the truer reading strengthens the view commonly held of the divinity of Christ. In the old version it reads thus : " Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In the new version the meaning is made more evident, and the passage becomes a stronger text than formerly in favor of the Saviour's divinity: it reads, "who being in the form of God (or being originally), counted it not a prize (or a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." Then we come to another point which is changed in the new version." It is in Eph. iv., 32, and forms the usual eon elusion to prayer, " God for Christ's sake." This, I believe, was the only passage in all the New Testament which could be quoted on behalf of that form of prayer —and it was,* as every scholar knew, or should have known, founded on a mistranslation, and the proper rendering is that what the new version gives, " Even as God in Christ forgave you, or us." The Old Testament supplies us with many forms of supplication, such as, " For Thy name's sake," " For thy goodness," or " Loving" kindness sake ; " but the only passage, as far as I know, for the usual form, which we have derived in a great measure no doubt from the Episcopal 1 Church, is the one mentioned. There are many cases in which we are represented as receiving mercy • in or through Christ, but not " for the sake of."