United States or Dominican Republic ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
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 teaching of Jesus. Yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53 viii. 11."
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." So the Revisers translate the first verse. They place in their margin, as an alternative, a rendering which makes faith to be "the giving substance to things hoped for, the test of things not seen."
The reading of both the Sinaitic and the Vatican manuscript, the oldest two we have, that preferred, I am glad to see, by both Westcott and Tischendorf, though not by Tregelles or the Revisers, is, "Children, how hard is it to enter into the kingdom of God!" These words I take to be those of the Lord.
The Revisers inform us that they have generally, though not uniformly, rendered the C'thib in the text, and left the K'ri in the margin, with the introductory note, "Or, according to another reading," or, "Another reading is." When they adopted the K'ri in the text of their rendering, they placed the C'thib in the margin if it represented a variation of importance.
Let us now take the translation given us by the Revisers: 'Wist ye not that I must be in my father's house? Are they authorized in translating the Greek thus? I know no justification for it, but am not learned enough to say they have none. That the Syriac has it so, is of little weight; seeing it is no original Syriac, but retranslation.
Paul did not intend adoption; and second, that if the Revisers had gone through what I have gone through because of the word, if they had felt it come between God and their hearts as I have felt it, they could not have allowed it to remain in their version.
In restoring this significant Declaration, the revisers of 1662 substituted the words "corporal presence" for the words "real and substantial presence," but probably with no intention other than that of making the original meaning more plain.
First, what was the general knowledge, on the part of the Revisers, of the character and peculiarities of New Testament Greek?
That in this decision the Revisers had exercised the sound judgement which marks every part of their work cannot possibly be doubted by any competent reader. The Massoretic text has a long and interesting history. That the formation of the written Massora was a work of time seems a probable and reasonable supposition.
Is it not then our clearest duty, remembering always that what we are translating is the Gospel message, to do what the Revisers did, to render each passage in accordance with the recognized meaning of the words, and in harmony with the plain tenor of the context?
Word Of The Day