New-York tribune., 1879-03-07
BIBLE REVISION.


To me Editor Of the Trtbune
SIR: The subject to which. by your courtesy !
have been allowed TO guide the thoughts OF many
of your readers is attracting great degree oi at-
tenton and will prove to be of no transient III
terest This interest will greatly increase as 500"
as the revision appears, and it is very important
even uow to direct the mnGs Of rejecting men 10
the great caution which ought to be observed III
discussing the matter. 1t would be very easy indeed
to make the appearance OF the expected Work the
occasion of reviving in all their old rancor the
quarrels of past generations. God forbid that our
anxiety to preserve or 10 amend our venerable Nei-
SION should have such dreadful Issue. surely
even a very considerable improvement of version
so eminently excellent would be no advantage II
purchased at such a melancholy cost
have urgcd that, so far as possible, good men
should treat the subject one Of science ana inter-
ature and reject anything likely 10 beget personal
and religions animosities Let us bring to the dis
cussion what the Germans call q scientific con-
science" and look at the facts the issues involved
and the practical advantages or disadvantages, as
far as possible with the passionIess intellect OF a
mathematician II was in this spirit that IN my
former letter took care to direct attention to one
practical point only, to which the meeting of the
Manhattan Association had attracted public no.
tice. held nobody personally responsible for it,
but quoted respectable newspaper, through ITS
reporter and took care to intimate that from
other sources Of information | had learned that
IDEAS entertained respecting the Bible Society
which led me to suppose the report. IN this par
ticular might be not without foundation. Other
particulars forbOre to note, because ! would not
credit them to the learned gentleman who was re-
ported to have expressed himself in a manner both
unguarded and provoking. am not little graft
fed to learn by The letter Of your correspondents
dated from the &" Bible House, New-lork. Fcbr ID.
1879" not only that he declines responsibility for
the newspaper report" but that in fact, he agrees
with me-that it is premature to discuss
the question of the Revision with refer
ence to the future action OF the BIbIe
Society. It is. indeed "not worth discussing now."
and should persons less discreet think otherwise
feel that there will be little danger oi their success
40 long as their unwisdOm and imprudence are coun
terbalanced by the sound judgment of no less per-
sonage than ''the President OF tho American Bible
Revision Committee"
Neither this gentleman, nor the highly intelii-
gent association which he addressed. is 10 be held
responsible therefore, for anything in the " news
paper report" There may have been some free con-
versation Extending over the hour OF social re-
union after the ecture) which reached the ear Oh
the reporter, and all this when condensed into
paragraph. becomes practical Diuhder ol
no inconsiderable dimensions. 1t is I'M
portant, however. that such blunders be
made impossible for the future, If from
the impending discussions we are to reap the huest
of the wheat and not thorns and thistles once Tor
all. them as the whole matter is now rendered I'M
nersona # NAV be well to survey the perils which
beset this subject. at the very outset II we refuse
to treat it as literary and scientific question only
of ia
Droposed revision as the work OF anv one class or
school of dynes One chief merit claimed Tor IL
is that great diversity of opinions have been har-
mo1ized in producing it, Bearing this in mind. it
must be remembered that if this harmony is to be
Immediately disturbed by the way in which each
separate school claims its own share and gives en-
phasis to the pecuarities which its influence has
secured, then this merit disappears, and, in IT'S
place we have an egg that must break t0rth INTO
VIPER Let me suppose. for example that at meet
ing in Oxford, some unguarded observations In the
crowd should have begOtten in The London Times
report somewhat as follows:
II was remarked by the eminent High Church dignl-
tarv eXpOuuded the merits OF the orthcomng yer
SON. that it would have some ella ms as substitute i0r
King James. which were Worry OF cGnslderalion. IN
10 the Purtans VINO were dissatisfied with the
"BsnOpS' Bible" Of which they complained AT Hampton
Court. Accordingly, there might De raced I'D II ne
publican ard If the term might Oe used Congregations
cear Visible I'm the CrOmwellian epoch which soon
followed Thus in the " Bishops Bible " we had very
royal ears il IN p. 8" snail smte even
King. in the day Of his wrath" whlr the version OF
1911 fairly menace what happened To Cailes L.
so firrccy does 1t read as follows: " snail STRIKE
through kings the day of his wrath" Then AGAIN, N
Acs XIX Al we find the word eeceSia actually rendered
the assembly and, If to make It worse, IN the 'ae
chapter, verse 81. we have word which refers To
heaheu temples rendered churches. very OnensVey ana
contrary the judi gmen OF all who have criticised thc
passage. Some the rdusators were undoubtedly az
gItl
Tvr % i,nt ,n,rv m ,t t6e pm tans of America de-
sccndants OF those who died threo king IONS with the
mate cxIed our princes anc IN America tortured and
huue even poor Quakcrs, shOIld nave cordially con-
seutcd 10 work WI, Us tllgh Churchmen, trust III
s,IrIt of Owe though we mean to surrender nothing
tnat the version acceptable 10 our queen
ana allstOcracy.
Now, say, had such report as this found its
way into The london Times. who cannot say how
fatal it must hay been to good feeling unless imme
datrly repudated Utterly absurd and gratultOus-
y offensive ;ls il is, however, dare say that the
members of the English Committee Will DO some
what surprised to read the equally absurd stale
mcnts which a blundcring reporter has contTlved to
Law at the door of an official lecturer in America.
II reads as follows:
He SAID that the original translation of the Old les
lament tlcre was a monarcnca and the term might
be used-an Episcopal bias. "S"rlkd tnc ute OF an
Arab chief, trcqu, ny rendered py the W"rd duhe
i'm Genesis, and " EpiscOpOl" was mace 10 NEhlly
biSliOps" when II was evidently meant 10 convey thc
,dea of soycrsrers" In Acts 30 The original transla-
i0rs wer" undoubtedly aH cted by the unconscious
influence of trad ton however honest may have been
urir int autiOus II almost marvel. hr thOnSht
hat the Church oi Ehglui. which had killed. tortured
nd at the stake dsseutcis from Its ft rhould
hay. oucnrda a question IN winch al ~ecs we're inter-
estrd and invited o their cOuuscls tue desCenuah OF
I'In IIunyin ana Baxter. Ii Was a marvel tEat the
GrLli.h rae should nave invited American advice, but
IL was done, he Thought, ~ Sitt "i IoNe. l"o IL We
n, viii retain the beau les King Jamcss version IN
nj FuUi,l-,peahing countries, and the result Will ul-
dnubirdy be an increased lnCrts IN the blple IL VIII
, i,rr,.s,ar, tuat the American Bible society Should
81 Ter IN, con-ti utiOn in order to PUBLISH the proposed
work but this viii III no way tehd " deAy It's P"o'"