Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1881-01-18
Revision of the Bible.

Rev. DR.. Barclay, of the First Luther
an Church of Baltimore, preached or
Bible revision on Sunday, January 9th
1881, from Second Timothy. iii, 49,
"Aii Scripture is given by inspiration
of God" The introduction was his
tory of the origin of the proposed revis
ion by the Convocation of Canterbury
ia England, and their coadjutors in
America. After dwelling fully upon
the merits of the present translation anC
the atfectionate regard and veneration
ter it in our homes and churches, he
showed how it was itself only a revis-
ionss and then proceeded to the history
of the various translations in the Anglo
Saxon tongue, such as Wickliffe's, 1884
Tyndars, 1926; Coverdale's, 1885 Gran
mer'a, 1912; the Geneva, 1850: the
Douay, or Roman Catholic, 1910, and
the Protestant version, under King
James, commenced in 1904, and the pro
posed revision commenced in 1870, the
New Testament of which was to be Of
fered in February of the present year
DIR. Barclay showed how the revision
committee met and answered all the
reasonable demands that could be made
in their work. He said it was not pro-
posed to offer new Bible Or to change
the old in the style and gravity of its
diction. They did not propose to get uI
a mere popular edition or to force Their
revision on churches or individuals. He
said that the logic WHICH could rejec!
the proposed revision would force the
English speaking Protestant churches
back to Wickliffes Bible, the Language
of which was now so obsolete that few.
even scholars, could understand it. The
defects of the King James version. he
said, were much fewer in number than
in the Douay edition. They were chief
ly of grammatical character and errors
iG spelling, punctuation, and geogra
ply, Uith numerous mis- translatiOns
and change2 that had occurred in the
Anglo Saxon tongue since the days OF
King James, Some of them allowable
then, but now altered, and some OF them
now coarse and unrefined, whilst the
division into chapters and verses had
no authority whatever and broke the
sense, and were ofensiveto every schol
ar and not tolerated. in any other book.
The defects of the King James
version were not willful, but the re-
suit of the imperfect means at hand
He then contrasted the knowledge Of
King James's day with ours in geogra-
ply, archaeology, access to ancient
manuscripts, privileges and improve.
ments in travel, instruments, &C., and
that uninspired men cannot escape the
hinderances of their age. The revision,
he said, Was already practically in use
in every scholarly pulpit in England
and America, and has been for years
The educated clergy knew the errors,
and were quietly correcting what the
committee of revision were desirous Of
doing by the wish and authority OF the
masses. HolI to the old version, and
the scholarly Protestant pulpit would
still go on to correct. How naueh bet
ter it would be by corrected version
accepted by the people. for the correc-
ton would no more injure the version
now in use than the removal of dead
flies from ointment or dirt specks from
choice statue in marble. To affirm
that corruptions were injurious would
be as Logical as that astronomy was not
science because improved telescopes
now gave larger view Of the face of the
skies.