The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-09-07

ing notice of the Revision by DIR. Holland
IN the August number of iSc7i5ner ?
What value can be placed on the opinion
OF such fee-thinker as DR.. Holland
when he says in the most oracular way
that "the superiority of the Revised New
Testament is patent ?"--and who outrages
the feelings of the Christian public by
intlmating that the reverence in which
the English Bible is held is little more
than downright superstition-a sort of
fetsch-and that the Bible is held in such
reverence only by fools and bigots. He
even goes to the astonishing length of
saying lit would be real benefit to
Chrstendom to break up the idea that
there is any thing sacred in the language
OF the old English Bible-to kill ont the
reverence for the old forms IN ,ohach truth
has been conveyed besides much more
OF the same sort of stuff.
10 return to the question-Zs the Re
vasaon an Improvement Well, DIR. Schaff
says so, and so do his american, associates
in the Revision; but they qualify their
approval by insisting on the expression
OF their preference for nearly three hun
dred readings and renderings, as NAV be
seen in the Appendix to the Revised New
Testament. DR.. Rogers, one of the Eng
llsh Committee, also contends most siren
uously that the Revision is an improve
ment; and has published small book or
pamphlet stating the reasons for making
some OF the most important changes. But
many OF these reasons are so unsatisfac
tory, that one is sometimes reminded in
reading them, of the criticism once passed
upon the judicial decisions of an eminent
Jurist-that he often gave very bad rea-
sons for very good opinions, and thus fire.
quently impaired the value of his decis-
IONS. More than this, DR.. Rogers is can
did enough to add note specifying sew
eral changes for the sOorse in the Revis-
ION, In one of which he says that no sense
is expressed in the translation; one that
In which the aOromg sense is expressed
and the note closes with the following
words: Speaking generally, it seems to
me That too many minute variations from
the Authorized Version have been ad-
united. IT an outsider had said such
things, it would Immediately be charged
that it was done through il ignorance and
prejudice; but coming from an avowed
friend, and found in small book or
pamphlet which was expressly prepared
with the view of bringing the Revision
before the public in the most favorable
light, they can only be regarded as dam
Gga'og admissions which the opponents of
Revision will be sure to make the most
OF. And now came another of the Eng
llsh Revisers, DR.. J. Vance Smith, who.
In the Nineteenth Century for June
seemingly forgetful of the homely pro-
verb-"it's an i'll bird that fouls it's own
nest, reviews the Revision with good
deal of freedom, not to say vina, showing
how the Revision Committee had violated
the rules established by themselves in the
outset, especially the first, which required
them " to introduce as few alterations as
possible consistently with faithfulness' -
as to which the reviewer says-"I must
frankly say 1 do not think this f4nda-
mental rule has been observed so we'll as
it ought to have been. The alterations
In my humble judgment, are not as few
as possible, but the comtrary," the last
word in his own italics, which is no doubt
to express the idea that so far from being
as fen as possible, they are as MANI as
possible: One might have supposed that
DR.. Smith, who is Unitarian, would
have been so well pleased with the omis-
sion from the text of the Revision land
without even marginal note of explana-
tlon) OF the famous passage q John v:
7-8) concerning the three heavenly wit
nesses, that everything else in the way
of change would have been all right with
him. But he seems to be very hard to
satisfy, and is obviously intent on reliev-
ing himself of all responsibility as to
some of the more important changes, such
as ar are n made "a in the Lords Prayer, espe-
cially "the evil one" for evl, besides
many others equally Objectionable. In
fact, DIR. Smith does not mince matters.
but presents formidable array of salient
points in the Revision, which, like those
OF DR.. Rogers above referred to, are not
likely to aid the Revision in winning its
way to public favor. Already number
OF adverse criticisms have appeared, both
in this country and in England, and no
doubt others will follow in due time. SO
that it will soon be made to appear that
all the wisdom and scholarship in the
world will not die with the Revisers of
1881. They may be learned men-very
learned in the Greek and Hebrew Ian
guages; but their translation of the New
Testament shows (even DR.. Rogers and
DR.. Smith being judges) either that they
h ad forootton 4bair ~ ~ Il -. -. ~