Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-04
tn. REVISED NEW TESTAMENT.

CnTlsJian WITH Las al opportunity ~
Judge of it. As matter of course opinions
will differ greatly as to the merits OF the
new revision. Custom is with many, per-
haps with majority, the most potent IN
3uence in operation, and custom cannot
but resent any considerable changes in a
work which men have been taught to re-
gard as already beyond improvement. In
fact SO strong is this feeling that if the re.
vised version were submitted to the de-
cision of jury of average bible readers
possessing no critical faculties, the pre-
sumption is that it would be rejected with
very little hesitation. OF course, however,
the question of its acceptance will not be
dealt with in that way, nor should it be SO
dealt with. Admitting the need of re-
vision, which perhaps viii seem to many a
large requirement. it only remains to be
ascertained whether it has been accom-
plished skillfully, faithfully, and judi
ciously. Eighty erudite scholars have
been engaged in the work during the
greater part of ten years. They went
about it with distinct understand
ing that they were to make as
few changes as possible. 1t was not to
be a new translation, but new revision
only. All or at least many sects were
represented in the Committee, and there.
fore there was natural disposition to deal
gently with those portions of the text upon
which sectarian doctrines have been estab-
lished. The avowed purpose of the Com
mittee was to produce close approxims-
| ton TO the original Greek texts; to correct
grammatical errors into which the transla.
tors of the Authorized Version had fallen /;
and to weed out spurious and doubtful
clauses and words wherever it could be
safely done. A perfectly candid revision
! would necessarily have demanded the ex.
cision of spurious and even doubtful pas.
sages. Bat as we shall see presently our
reyisers could not bring themselves TO this
state of determination. Probably they APP.
pretended the effect upon unlearned Chris
tians OF radical changes and omissions
or perhaps they were unwilling to make
what might be construed as concessions
to hostile criticism.
The little book called the Companion to
the revised version, by DR.. Roberts, is a
very useful and even necessary aid to its ex-
animation. Without it, indeed, such an
examination would be so tedious and diff
cult that few but scholars would probably
attempt it. Now, however, every pur.
chaser OF a copy OF the revised Testament
can with little patience ascertain for him.
self the extent and character of the more
important changes which have been made.
1t has been repeatedly stated OF late that
these changes were neither many nor i'm.
| portant. To this statement, however, it is
| impossible for anyone who has read DR..
Roberts explanations to assent. It is true
that the great majority of the changes are
Insignificant so far as concerns the matter
of the text, though great many even of
the more trivial changes are calculated to
vex Christians by altering the sound and
so destroying the familiarity of well-known
passages. Though it may be that the re.
visers have in many such instances critical
warrant for the alterations they have
made, it is certain that they have come
times introduced changes whicb without
impairing the sense rob the text of what
ever grace OF composition It formerly pos
sessed. Indeed it is not too much to say
that, speaking purely from the standpoint
OF style, the English OF the authorized
| version is better than that of the revised
version and this, too, even in cases where
the revisers have avowedly made changes
for no other purpose than the more COM
plete exploitation of the original.
1t may be doubted whether the reyisers
have given the English-speaking peoples
quite credit enough for intelligence, either.
We refer to the painful endeavor apparent
in this version to remove archaisms. In
some instances the result Of these efforts is
unhappy. 1t is in fact substitution of
what may be called reporters English for
the massive, full bodied, sterling English
of the King James version. But if other
objections are overcome, no doubt this will
be also, and though it is quite conceivable
that those who have been accustomed all
their lives to stand BY the authorized ver-
sion will continue to do SO, it is also con-
ceiyable that new generation may be
persuaded to accept the revised version
without much or any difficulty.
The difficulties of the task which. the
revisers have performed no doubt are
responsible for some strange results, but
it is questionable whether the timidity
which hindered them from accepting the
full consequences of honest revision has
not invited more trouble than it avoids.
The illustration Of our meaning will be
found in an examination of the more i'm.
| portant changes made in the text. Fol-
lowing these in the order in which they
occur, and in which they are treated by
DIR. Roberts, we find the first to be the
entire omission of the doxology of the
Lords Prayer at Matt. vi, Is. This
omission the reviewers justify completely
by showing that the doxology as it stands
in the authorized version is manifest in
terpolation, and an Interpolation moreover
taken directly from the hymnody of Pagan
ism. OF course the change will be re-
garded as catastrophe by the conservative
believers, but they have their choice be-
tween accepting genuine and a spurious
text.
The next important change is in fact
hardly change, but it is a remarkable
illustration of the timidity of the revisers.
The subject of it is Mark xvi, 900.
Now there is scarcely anything more fully