The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-19
THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT.
What the ReviSers Have Done and What
They Have Not Done with 1t.
General Summary of Their Work-The Linn
itatiOns of the Reyision-A Compre-
hensiye Review of the New Version.
Biblical Scholar in New New York sun.

A Biblical Scholar in New New York Sun.
The successful completion of the revised YER
sion of the Bible is one of the greatest literary
and religious events of the century. The prod
net of the joint labor Cor about fourteen years of
She best Biblical scholarship of Great Britain
and America, its issue is received by the public
with the highest anticipatons and the deepest
interest The Bible itself is a book which the
whole religious world holds in unequaied esteem,
and this may Justly be regarded as the culmina-
ton of efforts, protracted through more than
five hundred years, to render its contents readily
and clearly accessible to common English read
ers After eleven years of arduous and
minute toll, the New Testament was issued ex-
actly three years ago, and was circulated with
an enthusiastic ayidity unparalleled IN the his
tory of book making. The Old Testament, now
issued, is nearly three times as large. and IL is
o marvel that it is so soon completed The in
terest attaching to it, if not great on doetrinal
grounds is even greater with regard to the many
questions of natural science archaeology and
geography. which are largely involved Every
body who makes any pretenslons to religious
intelligence is eager to see the book and to as
certain how far the changes affect old opinions
&no former CONCLUSIONS = nioSt perSonS
want to know Immediately not so much all the
variations as few characteristic ones, especially
IN important and familiar passages, and at the
same time to have some cew to the reasons for
making them. and thus to be enabled to judge
of their necessity and propriety. The
anticipations of many persons respecting the
Ecope and design of tho revision have been SO
extravaganza that they will necessarily be disap
pointed Some seem to have imagined that it
was the duty and intention of the revisers to re-
move all difficulties from the Bible, and to clear
up every point to the comprehension of TN
unlearned and even dull readers. That, of
course, they could not do, nor were they ap-
pointed to do it They were not set to make a
commentary, nor even a new and original trans
tinEs-kHt- s4rs-~to revise, j. e. amend and cor
rect version already in the hands of millions
and familiar to every child. They were eX
pressly prohibited by the rules of their appoint
ment from introducing novel or unusual words,
or even such not congruous with the gen.
eral archaic style of the old book Thus when
it was obvious that change must be made, for
the sake of accuracy or clearness, the range of
substitution was very limited, and perfectly
harmonious and apt term could not always be
found. In thousands OF places they have pre-
terred to let the old word stand, even when OBJ
jectionabe, for want of better. Then, again.
that would seem to favor sectarian doctrine
particular church polity Indeed, the spirit of
their Instructions which they have every
where conscientiously followed, precluded
everything like gloss or speculative interpre
tation of the language If the original was
obscure, it very often Is to degree quite IN
comprehensive TO non Hebraist, they were not
at liberty to adopt conjectural translation,
much less to amend the text n
If the skeptie or the fanatic, the prelatst or
the socialist, in fine, the specialist in any line,
shall take up their work with view to confirm
ing his pet theory he will be disappointed, as he
deserves to be- The individual opinions of the
revisers themselves--and the public know that
asrey a. nave sRch-are not allowed to appear,
nor is the influence Of any particular school or
circle often discernible Wisdom is often shown
more by retcence than by volubility; and the
revisers deserve thanks quite as much for what
they have let stand as for what they have
changed
With these prellininares we proceed to ex-
hibit, as far as space admits, and the dsad-
vantage of having to deal with presumption of
the knowledge of English only on the part of
our readers may allow, such of the changes
effected as seem to us of greatest interest and
Importance. In this, our chief task, we shall
assume the position neither of an apologst, nor
Of an opponent, bat give our criticism independ-
emily and in non partisan spirit
Among the historical books Genesis stands
preeminent, both for classical terseness and ele
gance of style and for the universal and lasting
interest of its contents. Many of its fine turns
of expression, however, contain play upon
words which renders its transfer to any other,
especially our Occidental and modern languages,
extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible.
In such could hardly expect the re-
visers to touch the venerable, and, in the MAN,
fairly correct version. In the account of crea-
tion we note as point somewhat controverted
In scientific circles the more literal rendering,
"And there was evening, and there was morn
ing, day. Ii, 81, instead of the old And the
evening and the morning were the first day."
have read "a first day. which would
have better agreed with the corresponding
phase in verses, 8, Ii. etc, "And there was even
ing, and there was morning. second day." "a
third day" and so on. The rendering of
the serpents address to Eve, in ill.,. l. YEA, hath
God said we shall not eat of any tree in the gar
den," in place Of EVERY tree" is possible but we
think doubtful The disputed translation of
Ewes exclamation on the birth of Cain, II have
gotten man from the Lord" (iv., IL, remains, as
also the divine utterauce respecting the ante6i-
Iuvian world, MY spirit shall not always strive
with man." etc. wi 81. But in the next verse
'giants" is changed for the Hebrew word ''Ne-
pheiim," without any explanation. Among
minor changes in the account of the deluge we
notice the use of "blot out, instead of destroy"
iyii s. 23l; also, in the description of the ark
"a light" for "a window" wi 16l, as il is diff
ferent term in the original from that so rendered
In vlil, .. In K, Ii, ethnologists will
probably. approve of the change from
"Out Of the land went forth Asshur"
to "Out of the land he went forth
into Assyria, meaning that Nmrod migrated
thither from Babylon. In xvi, r. the proph-
ecy concerning Ishmael. HE will be wild man.
is changed to He will be as wild ass among
men, which is somewhat closer to the Hebrew
Qiteraily, "a wild ass of MANY, but sounds
quite strange. In the next verse the difficult
expression of Hagar. "And she called the name
of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God
seest me; for she said, Have | also here looked
after him that seeth mel" is changed in the lat
ter part so as to read, Thou art God that
seeth; for she said Have even here looked
vine commentator of Abraham, For know
him, that he viii command his children" is
changed TO For have known him, TO the end
that he may command his children" which
is more agreeable to the peculiar form
OF the original. The disputed phrase in