The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-08-10

The Revised Version of the
New Testament.
BY REV. H. c. ALEXANDER, D. D.

Ohe OF your correspondents, signing MS
paper with four asterisks, presented your
readers with critique of the new ver
sion in advance of its issue from the Uni
versity presses. This was somewhat after
the fashion of the lightning calculator in
New York who undertakes to give the
answer to sum in arithmetic before all
the terms of the problem have been an
nounced. One thing that this astute
critic took the revisers to task for, was
their alleged omission of all the longer
passages that are in dispute amongst the
textual experts, such as the concluding
verses in Mark and the account in John
of the adulterous woman. What this
writer desired was that such passages
should be retained, but that the degree
of uncertainty attaching to them should
in some way be brought to the notice of
the reader. Now, as is apparent to every
body, this is precisely what the revisers
have DONE and we may reasonably sur
mise that their anonymous Judge. the
propriety of whose ideas as to what ought
to have been done in regard to these pas
sages has thus been so amply vindicated
by the action of the committee, will step
forward at once and make the amaende
honorable. We refer to this point simply
to illustrate the method of the revisers
in important cases of this sort, where the
evidence is divided. Where the evidence
against given passage was considersd
to be decisive, the plan of the committee
was to leave the passage out altogether,
and at the same time, if there was any
considerable ancient testimony in favor
of its retention, to indicate that fact in
the margin. This is certainly all that
could have been expect of them, pro-
vided only they were to be encouraged
to form new text. Just here as this
topic may perhaps not come up AGAIN.
the wisdom of the revisers may be ques
toned in leaving blank margin at
John v: 7 and s. 1t is true that "the
testimony of the heavenly witnesses" as
it has been styled, is not found in any
ancient manuscript of the original Greek
and is commonly looked upon as spurious.
1t can, however, be traced back to point
of respectable Though not the highest)
antiquity in the Latin documents, and is
possibly recognized in the writings of
one or more of the fathers. In this one
instance, then, it might have been Judi
cious to deviate from the general rule
and make fair statement of the case in
the margin. The total obliteration Of so
familiar, and so momentous, proof-text
without note or comment would seem to
have tendency to disturb the confidence
of many pious but uninstructed readers.
The next point which demands more
particular scrutiny, is that of the trans
lotion. Under this head may be con-
sidered two things, viz: first, the ade-
quacy of the version to represent intel
Lightly to the reader the vocables and
idioms of the original, in other words the
translation proper; and second, the char
acter OF the English into which the Greek
has been turned, in other words the lam
gatoge.
The first of these things to be discussed
is the merits of the translation proper.
And on the threshold it must be con-
coded once more that in many points the
older versions, not excepting King James
were at fault and needed amendment
Aside from individual and. as it were
casual blemishes, the Authorized Version
in common with its forerunners, is marred
by number of characteristic errors
which appear and reappear with steady
and almost uniform constancy. There
are also certain peculiarities Of the YER
sion Of 1911 which were evidently the
result of design, and was evidently de-
signed to crafty the readers taste, that
undoubtedly tend, nevertheless, to OBJ
scure the exact messing Of the inspired
penmen, and that without being directly
opposed either to the lexicon or to the
grammar are yet, for the reason Just in.
timated (as well as on higher grounds o.
taste) rather unfortunate and had better
be removed. These characteristic and