The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13
Omr Contributors.
The Revised Version of the
New Testament.
BY REV. II. c. ALEXANDER, D. D.

The practical issue then is this: with
out raising again the points already set
tied, is it on the whole advisable that the
proposed Revision be accepted in lieu of
King James? This comprehensive in
quiry involves two main questions, and
several dependent ones. The first main
question may be stated thus: is the pre-
sent Revision, when all things are con-
sidered, a decided improvement on the
Authorized Version? The second main
question amounts to this: in any event,
should the Revision be substituted in lieu
of the Authorized Version?
1t is evident that any answer. whether
affirmative or negative, to the second of
these questions, would be decision of
the whole matter. 1t is at least conceiv-
able, however, that an affirmative answer
might be given to the first question, and
yet negative answer be given to the
second question.
1t is obvious, therefore. that the con-
sideration of the first question should
precede the consideration of the second.
Is, then, the Revision of 1880 decided
Improvement on the Version of 1911?
This brings to the front at once three of
the collateral and dependent questions.
The first OF these collateral questions is.
Were the rules governing the revisers
the right ones? The second collateral
question is, have the revisers faithfully
adhered to their own rules? The third
collateral question is, on view of the
whole case, ought the work of the re-
visers in the new Version to be commend.
ed as a decided Improvement upon the
old =? Here, too, it is plain that the set
tlement of the last of these questions
finishes the discussion; but that the first
and second might be determined in the
affirmative, and yet the third be deter
minedin the negative. 1t is clear, II ere
fore, that these collateral questions should
be considered in the order in which they
have been stated The first and second
OF these questions are not exactly essen
tial, and at the same time are highly i'm
portant. No matter whether the re-
svisers' rules were good or were bad no
matter whether the revisers' rules were
observed or departed from: if only the
revisers' work be approved, the main
question is settled. 1t must be borne in
mind, though, that the preliminary in
quiries, as to the rules, will tend to facil-
itate the more practical inquiry, as to
Improvement; and besides, that the pre-
liminary points have an interest and
value of their own, irrespectively alto
gether of any comparison between the
Versions 1t ight on some accounts be
better to take up the second Of the pre-
liminary and collateral questions before
taking up the second: in other words. to
inquire how the revisers have kept their
rules, before inquiring as to the value of
the rules themselves. Such transposi-
ton, even had it otherwise been Judged
to be advisable, is rendered wholly un-
necessary by the circumstance that with
perhaps one or two exceptions the intrin-
sic value of the rules will be immediately
conceded. Then, too the previous state
ment and estimation of the rules will
make more ineligible the subsequent in
vestigation as to ehe manner in which the
rules have been observed. Exceptional
points for debate or criticism may be re-
served for later stage Of the inquiry :
II
but the rules in general will be taken up
and estimated without delay. The cues
ton then Immediately before us is this ::
were the rules which governed the re-
visers good rules? This, of course, raises
a further question of preliminary ma
ture, (Which, however may be dismissed
in few words), viz What were these
rules =? The fundamental resolutions
adopted by the Convocation of Canter-
bury, May 3D. and 9Th, 1870, were the
following;
/. That a revision Of the Authorized
Version Of the Holy Scriptures be under
taken.
2. That the revision be so conducted
as to comprise both marginal renderinps
and such cancellations as it may be found
necessary to insert in the text of the An
thorized Version.