The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-10-25
For the Central Presbyterian.
The Revised Version of the New
Testament.
BY REV. H. c. ALEXANDER, D. D.
No. 20.

Before proceeding to consider the
broader aspects of the subject in contro-
versy, it is desirable that we should glance
back at the steps already taken. The
first question that could occur to any one
in this whole field of inquiry is, Should
there be Bible at all? Then, in logical
order, would follow the questions, Should
there be Bible in any but the original
languages; and, Should the translated
Bible be from time to time revised g?
Upon the second of these questions OBJ
viously depends the answer to one which
now succeeds; viz. Should there be
version in English and upon the third
of the aforesaid questions turns the an.
swer to be given to yet another, which
Is this Should the English Bible be from
time to time revised?
These several questions were all an
swered in the affirmative. The ground
was thus cleared for three additional
main questions which comprize in their
scope the entire debate as to the value
and practical utility of the proposed en-
endations. The first of these main aues-
tons was, Is the Authorized Version OF
King James so good as to make further
revision undesirable2 This question was
answered in the negative. The two other
main questions really cover the gist OF
the discussion on the merits. They are
these: Is the present revision on the
whole decided improvement on King
James and, Should the revision be sub
stituted in lieu of King James? These
two final questions are mutually and in
timately related. The whole decision
turns on the answer given to the last OF
them, but that answer again turns largely
on the answer returned to the one imme
diately preceding. Ia other words if the
revision ought to be substituted in lieu
Of the Authorized Version, the whole
matter is ipso facto settled: and, again,
if the improvement ostensibly exhibited
in the revision involve real and stuff
GENTLY near approach to the standard OF
ideal perfection, it is manifest that the
revision ought to be accepted in place OF
the older version. Once more if the
alleged improvement should be discov
cred to be no improvement at all, or only
a very partial improvement, then it is
clear that the substitution of the newer
for the older renderings should not be
made. The chief interest, however,
would attach to the query, What should
be the final determination OF the ques-
ton in the event that the improvement
in the revision should be Judged to b.
so decided and so great as to give it
clear superiority over the authorized
translation, and yet not superiority SC
marked and universal as necessarily t,
evince that the later ought to be made
to supersede the earlier revision ?
Besides the two main questions there
were four subordinate ones. OF thes,
subordinate questions two were ancillary
and non-essential, and two were funda
mental The ancillary questions (whcl
were not discussed and are not to be dis
cussed) were these Was this the time
and were these the circum stances for :
revision and, We're these the indvid
uals or bodies Of individuals for the re
vision? OF the fundamental questions
the first was, Were the rules governing
the revisers the right ones2 This wa
answered partly in the affirmative, anG
partly in the negative The rules were
allowed to be for the most part excellent
ON the assumption that the revision