The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-16

Professor John De Witt, u. Dr. theological semt
Professor George Emline Hare, D. D.. LII. De
Divinity School Of Philadelphia.
Professor Chas. 2. Krauth ID. d.. Lib D., vice.
provost OF the University of Pennsylvania, Philade
phia.
Prof. Taylor Lewis LII. D.. Union School, schnecta-
Prof. Charles NJ Mead, D. D., theological seminary.
Andover. Mass.
Prof. Howard osgood, D. D., LII. D., theological
Prof. Joseph Packard, D. D., theological seminary.
Alexandria Va.
Prof. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D.. Hartford Conn.
Prof. James Strong LII. D.. theological seminary,
Prof. Rev. @. v. vandyke D. d., NJ D., theological
seminary, Beyrut, Syria advisory member on ques-
[The American Old Testament Company lost by
death: Taylor Lewis died, 1877; Dr. Krauth, died
January 1888, and DR.. Stowe, by resignaton.l
OF the old Testament Company, DIR. Krauth 10
the only active member who has died, Prof
Taylor Lewis, who died in 1877, having been
unable to participate in any of the meetings.
1t is interesting to note that the few members
who were not in the committee at first organiza-
ton were elected by the body almost immedi-
ately afterward, so that all those who broughG
the work to its conclusion had part in 1t from
the beginning.
HOW THE WORK WAS DONE.
The members sat around commoR
table, and freely and fully discussed
such passages or chapters as had been
previously assigned for the particular
meeting each member having already exam
ined and investigated them for himself. In this
way the whole of the New Testament and
the Old was infinitely considered and discussed
The work was reviewed in this careful manner
twice. from beginning to end. In the first revie
sion changes in the authorized version were
recorded for further consideration ia case they
were made by majority of votes, but in the
second review the rule demanded vote of
two thirds in order to adopt the
proposed change. Finally all passages
in which differences still remained between
the views of English and American companies
were examined third time. 1t may be safely
said that no criticism has been made on the
New Testament portion Of the work, already
published which was not anticipated and ac-
corded full and fair discussion by the reviewers
of the work. AS the two companies includes
scholars Of the principal Protestant denomina-
tons, an opportunity was given for full and
fair presentation of the views of each bearing
upon the matter of the translation of words and
sentences. Controversy, however, never arose
in the meetings on points dividing religious
bodies The spirit of scholarship rose far above
the sectarian spirit, and the latter was at no
time manifest. This fact may also bear with
itself a testimony to the general accuracy
of their work. The relations between
the committees of revision in the two countries
involved some questions of Importance which
called for extensive correspondence, but these
were finally settled by an agreement between
the two parties, which met the approval of both.
At an early period in the history of the work
an arrangement had been made between the
English company and the officers connected with
the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge,
by which the revised version in Great Britain
became the property of these institutions on
condition that the large expenses incidental to
the production of the work in that country
should be paid by them. 1t was at no time de-
sired by the American company to have such an
arrangement made between themselves and pub
fishers in the United States or in any way
to put restriction on the sale OF
the new book for the purpose of securing any
remuneration for their own services or any bene-
fit for themselves whatever. No copyright was
thought Of or wished for in America with any
such end in view. At one time, however the
subject of securing copyright for the sole pur-
pose of preventing the publication OF Inaccurate
and imperfect editions, was considered. This
led to much correspondence with the University
Presses and with lawyers in America but
this scheme was soon abandoned. The Amer
lean revisers were determined not to accept
pecuniary benefit from their work, and the
decided to be too little to change
them from this settled purpose. AS
some standard edition. however. was
necessary, the American committee agreed to
make public statement that the one issued by
the University Presses was the one for whose ac-
cnracy they would hold themselves responsible.
The attitude of the English committee toward
the suggestions of the American revisers was
that Of readiness to give the most respectful con-
sideratOn.
In July, 1873, when the question Of the seiec-
ton Of the two bodies was first brought under
consideration, both the Old and New Testament
companies in England declared that they were
glad to have the opportunity of repeating the
consideration" and twill attach great weight
and Importance to all the suggestions of the
American committee" Two years later the
same assurance was repeated, the companies
again declaring that they Twill continue to give
the greatest possible weight to every suggestion
of the American committee, and will also en-
deavor, whether by conference or otherwise, to
arrive at an agreement upon any points OF inn
portance as to which the English companies and
the American committee may be fully agreed
Soon afterward, and in consequence of per
sonal conference with DR.. Schaff in the Jerusa-
lem Chamber, Westminster, the plan of. eecting
two members Of each body into tho
other was proposed and adopted by both
of the English companies, and subsequently, ao-
copied by the American commission. This plan
proved so cumbersome that it had to be aban-
doned. At the same time certain complications
arose. connected with the transference of the
pecuniary rights on the work of the revisers In
England to the universities, which led to new
negotiations between the syndics of the presses
and the revisers This resulted in an agreement
between the revisers and the presses, In
august, lO1 Is anu was dccepteu q Eloutu ldtcE w
the American commission. The agree
ment, after stating that the primary OBJ
ject of the American commission and the
two English companies is assumed to
be to obtain one and the same revision of the
present English authorized version of the Holy
Scriptures, specifies distinctly the manner
in which the two committees of revision were to
work together. The English revisers were to
send their provisional versions to the American
committee A reasonable time would be al
lowed the Americans to return remarks or criti-
cisms upon this second version, when the Eng
lish revisers would take this into special consid-
Grafton. In case any differences still remained,
the American committee would yield its prefer
ences;for the sake of harmony But points con
sidered vital BY the American committee and NOT
accepted by the English, should be published In
an appendix or preface. 1t was also specified
that all communications between the American
and English companies should be strictly conf.