The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-06-15


the query might we'll come up and seem
to call for an answer, "Why have any
further revision? Why not let well
alone'?' This misgiving has been amply
disposed of in your editorial columns, as
well as by the pens of your contributors.
Language is fuctuating. Though now
in form approximating more nearly to
standard of permanence than ever be-
fore, the English even of the authorised
version itself has gradually become some
what antiquated, and in some instances
obsolete. The inevitable consequence is
increasing uncertainty as to the sense
Well informed people know, but many
others are ignorant of the true meaning
of certain passages. We need hardly
again instance such words as prevent" 4"
let" carriage" "habergeon," etc.,
which have been so much referred to.
Besides this undoubted and ascertainable
errors have crept into the text, as we'll
as into the translation. Modern textual
criticism was scarcely more than in its
infancy in the days of the first Stuart.
Biblical learning at that time was greatly
honored, and was vast as well as high.
1t was not, however, as extensively diff
fused or as minutely accurate as it has
become in our time. Hebrew was not
understood then as it is understood now.
The result is that the revisers must be at
work two or three years longer before
they can be willing to go before the world
with their very radical amendments to
the Old Testament portion of King
James's Bible. Comparative Philology,
too, is a science that has only recently
come into existence. All human work,
moreover, is necessarily imperfect.
The object Of this article is not to dis
cuss the propriety of the changes that
have been actually made or even the
more general questions as to the ertent
to which the work of revision ought to
have been pushed. Neither is it the ef
fort of this paper to screen the revisers
from blame in having revised the Scrip
lures at all, or to make formal argu-
ment in advocacy of the need of some re-
vision. The simple aim of this contribu-
ton is to point out under what circum-
stances, after what precedents, and under
the influence of what motives and agen-
cies, the new revision came into being.
The scheme of revision originated at
the Convocation at Canterbury; and thus
fifty traces its birth to "the mother
church, as it has been denominated, "of
Anglo-Saxon Christendom" There was
first appointed by Convocation commits
sion of sixteen persons, consisting of eight
bishops and eight presbyters of the
Church Of England. The date of this
was May 10th, 1870. The
new revision has been conducted under
the operation of rules that have been
conservative, and yet more liberal than
those which bound the revisers of King
James. There was historic propriety
In the suggestion that the Church of Eng
land should take the lead in this great
business but it was felt that it was time
that other churches should be asked to
cooperate in such a movement. The
royal motto Of the seventeenth century
is no longer paramount: "No Church
without Bishop no state without a
King" So the new revisers were
clothed with authority to invite the
cooperation of any eminent for scholar
ship, TO a0hateUer nation on religious body
they may belomg." Under this rule even
Romanists and Jews would appear to be
entitled to admission, but the discretion
was lodged in prudent hands and due
caution was exercised in the actual selec-
ton. At the first convocation, presided
over by the late DIR. Samuel Wilberforce,
Bishop Of Winchester, it was resolved to
enlarge the committee by appointing
about forty distinguished Biblical schol-
ars of Great Britain. A few declined :
notably, DR., Pusey and Cardinal New
man. Others were added Several
changes were due to deaths and resigna-
TONS The committee was divided into
two companies. One of these had charge
Of the work in the Old Testament and