United States or Saint Barthélemy ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
This criticism has at least the merit of intelligibility, for it directly antagonizes what was, without doubt, one main purpose with the revisers, namely, that of reviving respect for the rubrics by making compliance with their terms a more practicable thing.
As competent scholars and honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to point out that such things have happened even since the date of the oldest known manuscripts.
But now it must be distinctly admitted that recent investigation and, to a certain extent, recent discoveries have cast so much new light on New Testament Greek that it becomes a positive duty to take into consideration what has been disclosed to us by the labours of the last fifteen years as to New Testament Greek, and then fairly to face the question whether the particular labours of the Revisers have been seriously affected by it.
If these three questions are plainly answered we shall have dealt fully and fairly with the doubts that have been expressed or implied as to the correctness of the revision. First, then, as to the general knowledge which the revisers had of the character and peculiarities of the Greek of the New Testament.
A brief sketch of some of the more prominent of these developments can render the fact only more, obvious. One of the most important events of the century to the English speaking world is the Revision of the Bible. Its full effect is not yet felt, as the book which was the product of the Revisers' labors is but slowly winning its way into use in the Church and the home.
So much of the latter part of the last Address has been taken up with this necessary duty of showing that the changes in renderings cannot be invalidated by a priori considerations founded on the alleged insufficient knowledge, on the part of the Revisers, of the nature of the Greek they were translating, that I have not cited examples of the light-giving and often serious nature of the changes made in the Authorised Version.
This recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient Versions by the Revisers, though obviously in only a limited number of cases, seems to indicate the great good that may be expected from a more complete and systematic use of these ancient authorities in reference to the current text of the Old Testament.
The first particular is the important question of the rendering of the word "JEHOVAH." Here the Revisers have thought it advisable to follow the usage of the Authorised Version, and not to insert the word uniformly in place of "LORD" or "GOD," which words when printed in small capitals represent the words substituted by Jewish custom for the ineffable Name according to the vowel points by which it is distinguished.
It is that touching apologue, with its profound ethical sense, of the woman taken in adultery which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide, might well be affirmed to be a typical example of the teachings of Jesus. Yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53-viii. 11."
But as the date of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to adopt the Massoretic text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases."
Word Of The Day