The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-06-30
For the Contra, Presbyterian.
The Revision of the English
Rih1e

MeSSrS. Ed,tor8,-At the annual meet
ing of the Morris county Bible Society at
Chatham, n j. on the 9Th, the president,
Rev. James Strong, S. T. D., a member
of the American Committee of Revision,
gave an illustrative lecture on the kind
of changes likely to be made in the Re-
vision; and, as the subject is matter
of common interest to all English-speak-
ing Christians, hereby make good the
promise in my last, of a somewhat ex-
tended report
The Doctor, at the outset, stated, that
while the committees, both in England
and America, were under bonds not to
forestall the action of the committees by
premature revelations, yet he considered
himself at liberty to satisfy a reasonable
curiosity to know what is proposed in the
Revision. AS regards chronology, he
said, Archbishop Ushers system usually
found IN the common version, being no
part of the version itself, and now so uni
versally admitted to be incorrect, would
b set aside; at all events, the American
Committee were not responsible for any
chronological addenda; but confined their
labor solely to the text. No one, outside
Of the committees, would probably ever
fully know the amount of pains-taking
labor that has already been, and will
yet be bestowed upon the Revision; for
the simple reason that at the best only
the results would appear; while the re
search and mutual consultations and dis
cussions, some of them over seemingly
very small points, yet consuming many
hours of valuable time where no results
will be seen, cannot be appreciated by
outsiders; for many passages, which may
possibly be left as they are, will not show
how much thought was expended in com
ing to the conclusion to let them alone.
The changes which might, in such cases,
be made, might perhaps make the sense
little clearer; but it was question
whether the substitution of one synonym
for another would compensate the loss
which might be felt in the removal of a
established word merely to crafty
the demands of exacting criticism
For example, in Genesisi: IL, the word
armament naturally suggests the idea Of
something solid overhead, through which
the stars appear; whereas the Hebrew
word rke0k means no such thing but
simply an open eTpanSe. But take the
same word as it occurs IN Psalms xix: /
THE ornament SheaOeth his handi,Oork,
and erponSe, as rendering, would be out
of place. :" I rather think" said the
Doctor, " that ornament will remain
where it is. So, too, in Genesis vi 4
where, in our common version, the word
giants occurs, in the Hebrew it is Nephi-
Inn. Some of the Committee said the
Doctor, proposed to transfer the He
brew word, so as to avoid the possibility
of wrong impression. But, while the
word giants has meaning Nephilino tc
the English ear has none | rather think
you will find grants retained in the Re
vision" The committees have laid il
down, as a rule, not to introduce any
change where it is not absolutely needed
Thus, very many words will probably be
retained, because, though Objectionable
in some respects, they are, on the whole
the best that can be found thus showing
the marvellous care and forethought exer
cised by King James revisers
In like manner, many marginal read
ings may be restored, and many, in fac
most, of the words in italics in our com
mon version will be omitted, and tn,
sense given by very slight change with
out them. For example, in Genesis j
20, the word that, in italics, should neve
have been inserted. 1t gives q very err
roneous idea, viz, that fowl or birds, wer
created out Of the water, which is not il
the Hebrew. 1t should be simply, An