The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1881-05-25
INK REVISED BIBLE.
A seaztling OfSticis q, Upon the s'Orkof its
Late Revisers.

A sea1bing OsSticis N Upon the ssorkof its
Late Revisers.
NV YoRx, May 1s.-A dispatch from
London gives the iain points of the Stand
ards review of the Revised New Testament.
The writer of the al ticle asserts that, what
syerSchOlars nay Il link of the l&boFs Of re
visers, the inp-essi on produced uPontke
public mind is one of disappointment AMI
dissatisfaction. 1t i deeply to be regretted
that the reviseFs, jud ging by the work Just
published, have apparently forgotten
she conditions unde which the tHsk was
Entrusted to the N. 1t is obvious
(tsat great many alt erations adopted have
been approved by asOns of mere literary
&6riticism, which II AXE US rather sceptcal as
% the infallibility or we n good taste of the
I'TeviseFs. Where 70 material change &C. the
|eense -substanee,oft be authorized version
has been-Shown 10 be required by the sevi-
sors for proper cORStru elton of the original,
they have neverths less thought themselves
justified in mendiRC the English and I'M
proving The GRAMMAR Of passages wiiich
have struck deep not in the hearts and
memories of the Ss.nglish people, Cue
word has been substituted for another at the
within of the New Testament COMPANY
Moods and lenses haze been skifted aboo6
~
ca symmetry. Sentences treasured up in
the popular mind, ard enriched beyond
)descr.ptiOn,hy pathetic associations of hun
dra6S. Of years. have beer tortured and cruel
)hed into precise gramR.atical accord with
che latest refiRGnents OF. critical labor upon
the Comparison of the early manuscript
texts. and have thus been robbed of all its
ttrue xalRe. Tle system upon gfich tho
revisers appear to have acted, in our judg-
ment is altogether erronsous and <eplora-
bic.
The writer then points cut the position
held By Tue Script 'res among English speak
ing people. "1neT have been known by
them and 5ered by chem for centuriess' he
says, and n is rash and reckless to akake
this noble yBSwth OF centuries by attempt
ling to harrla02ize IL with correctness of self
|opiniOnated scholarship, or regulate IL by
|che doubtful standard OF taste accepted by
aotley combination. 81 theologiSns ond pso-
lfessors. Even the Lords Pnyer, which
k.ery English Speaking child learns TO lisp
II SIS mothers knee. has not been spared I
|Ths revisers have handled il /
ls a bold commentator might handle |
THE VIGOROUSLY corrupt chorus in Eumnides /
|Dr the Vatchae st Paula praise of charity, |
|unequalled in its Osn kind for ringing and
|rhythmicsl eloqueRee in tie old version. is |
|mangIed and made recognizable by the |
kenseeSs substitution of the word Love /
Charity The meaning is really OBJ
yured rather than elucidatsd by this |
change while the music of the sentence is
Erretrievably lost. Alterations of the dictiop !
|of the old version, involving no gain in |
sense or scarcely a percePtible one,
Iwarm in the revised edition,
bnd in almost every instance
Il is impossible not 10 feel that the original
|ranslations. however inferior to those of
We present revisions iH precise and exhaust
We scholarship, textual or general, were inf-
bitely their snperiors in rare and precious