The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-22
THE REVISION OF THE WORD
Rev. James L. Mcleod Gives a Review
Of the Work of the Committee.
While No Revision Was Necessary the Work
Was Desirable-Difficultes in the
Way of Its Acceptance.

Way Of Its Acceptance.
Rev. James L. Mcleod. pastor Of the Second
Presbyterian Church, talked to his congregation
yesterday morning about the work of the COM
mittee appointed by the convention of Canter-
bury to revise the Bible. Taking his text from
John iv. &c. "Other men have labored, and We are
entered into their labors," DR.. Mcleod said:
On the 22d day of june 1870, the committees
appointed by the Convention of Canterbury" to
revise the English Bible, met in Westminster
Abbey and began their great work In 1880, the
New Testament Company finished their labors,
and in May, 1884, the revised New Testament
was published. The last meeting of the Old
Testament Company was held the goth day
of June, 1884, and in May, 1885, the revised Old
Testament was published. The whole Bible in
its revised form is now in our hands, and,
although we have only had a month in which to
examine the new Old Testament, yet suppose,
many of us have formed some opinion concern
ing the revised work, as whole. Every lover
of our good old English Bible, as he compares
the new with the DID, will naturally ask these
three questions: First, was such revision rec
| essary9 Second, was it desirable2 Third, is it
satisfactory?
First-It must be conceded that there was
no necessity for revision. The
revision of 1911, which had taught
saving truth to the people for nearly three CEN
turies would doubtless have continued to do so
for millennium 1t contains all the knowledge
necessary to salvation. 1t Is an infallible rule
of faith and practice. 1t sets forth the doctrines
of grace clearly and simply, and with the utmost
fidelity. Every essential and fundamental doc
trine contained in the authorized version" is
embodied in the revision. In this respect the
new neither changes nor modifes the old. When
the subject of revision was under discussion in
1870, DR.. Alfred. dean of Canterbury, said of the
King James version, that for fidelity, simplicity
and majesty it might well challenge comparison
with any version of the Holy Scriptures the
world has ever SEEN" That challenge still holds
good, for as the good Dean further said 1.-THE
character and spirit of version are all that
we can desire. It's pure use of our native tongue,
the exquisite balance and music of its sentences,
the stately march Of its periods the hold in the
memory taken by the very alterations and
antitheses which were tie manner of writing
when it was made-the fact that it has been for
centuries and is now the vehicle to this
and holy and lovely, and of good report-rhe
first lesson of infancy, the guide of mature life,
the comforter of sickness and death-when we
think of all this, we can hardly be surprised that
maryland some of the best among us-refuse to
see its faults, and are unable to contemplate
with any content the prospect of their being
corrected" In that paragraph the Dean gave
expression to the views and feeling of vast multi
tudes. They could not see any necessity for a
revision. They had followed the old light and
had been led by it into the way Of life. What
was good enough for them or for their fathers
seemed to them good enough for the generations
to come. They cherished, and reverenced, and
loved the old book, not only for it's intrinsic
excellence, but because it had made them wise
unto salvation.
And now that the revision has been made,
there are multitudes who cling to the dear old
book with greater love than ever. The new
may be very good, but, in their eyes, the old is
better" Father Faber knew both its beauty and
its power over the English mind and
heart when he said: 1.-THE memory of
the dead passes into it. The, potent
verses. The power of all the grief and tri ais
of man are hid beneath its words It is the
representative of his best moments ard all that
there has been about him of soft, and gentle and
ever out of his Protestant Bible 1t is his sacred
thing, which doubt has never dismissed and
controversy never soiled." These things being So
the necessity for revision is by no means APP
parent
Secondly-But although unnecessary, was it
desirabley Some say no. and among other reasons
they point to the revision itself They criticize
it unmercifuly-at least the New Testament.
Mr. Spurgeon's criticism was short and pithy.
He said: eff the revisers had only understood
English as we'll as they did Greek they nighs
have made a most creditable version" Thrust
be confessed that, as compared with the old
version, there are some translations and ex
pressions in the new which are exceedingly
infecitous. Take for example, this SEN
tence 1.-THE footstool of my feet" Surely the
old is better when it simply says my
footsool." It would seem as if the .revisers
thought that some English readers might not
understand that footstool is for the feet and so
they determined to make the matter specific. Their
translation is literal enough. The only trouble
is that out of good Greek they have made very
bad English. And this identical blunder they
have repeated at least seven times. The Old
Testament company have avoided this mistake
In translating the 10th Psalm they say, as in
the old version, "Sit, thou, at my right band,
until l make thine enemies thy footstool." But
while many passages and expressions in the re-
vision, especially in the New Testament, are
open to just criticism, and while this revision is
not the most desirable, yet, that good revision
is desirable ought not to be regarded as question
able The objections that have been urged
against revision seem very little, in view of the
solid reasons in its favor.
The age of the authorized version, instead of
being strong argument against revision, is just
the opposite. 1t is long way from the Monk
Of Jarrow to John Wyclif, and it is another
But just as Wyclif's Bible was an improvement
upon that of Venerable Bede, so the King James
version%as vast improvement upon that of
Wyclif. AS the fourteenth century afforded
facilities to scholars which were unknown in the
eighth century, and as the scholarship and
facilities of the seventeenth century weM great
ly in advance of those of the fourteenth, so the
progress of learning and the discoveries of
manuscripts, ETC., which have BEEN going on for
the last two hundred and seventyE ears give to
the scholars of to-day decided advantage over
those of the past. If by digging around the old
.'well of English undefyled" any discoveries
have been made which are calculated to make
that we'll still more attractive, then, by all
means let us have the benefit of such discover
les. The Bible known as the authorized YER
sion is, rs the revisers truly say, the result of
various revisons made between the years 1926.
when the first English Bible was printed, and
oh thaun
be another revision? If the meaning
of the Bible, or of the Confession of Faith
can be made clearer by revision then let the
Bible and Confession Of Faith be revised. If