The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-24
A Serious Disagreement on an Important
Passage from Job Which Involves the Doc
trine of the Resurrection.
Why Mast, the Artist, Was Not Given
the Post of Minister to Germany.
The Perfectionists Undertake the Cure of
Gen. Grant by Miracle-A Quarrel Over
the Recent Roller Skating Contest.
THE BIBLE REVISION.

A Dispute Between the Revfsers Involving
the Doctrine of the Resurrection.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.
New YORK. May 23.-There is something of
an international disturbance over the revised
Old Testament. The American company of re-
visers are displeased at the English company of
revisers This feeling arises from the breaking
of mutual agreement about the publication of
the work. 1t was clearly understood that no
copy should 60 out of the hands of the printers,
save to members of the committees, until the
morning of May 81 The Americans scrupu
lously kept this compact. They were fairly
besieged by journalists and others, who offered
liberal pay for articles interviews containing
particulars as to the alterations made in the text
but they felt bound to divulge no definite infor-
nation, and wentno further than to provide
matter, under undoubted safeguards that it would
not be printed before the stipulated day. The
Englishmen, however, unbosomed themselves
three days beforehand, and the cable brought
copious dispatches the subject, SO that most of
the novelties of the revision were known prior
to the proper date. The Americans feel espe-
cially sore because, when it was pointed out that
they might, with legal and moral propriety, copy
right the book for the United States-their share
in the authorship enabling them to do so ey
decided after full discussion, that it would not
be quite dignifed to enter into anything which
resembled commercial arrangement 'The
project was considered both here and in Eng
land says Prof. George E. Day, the secretary
Of the American company, ''and no objection
was made in any quarter to our right in the
premises but we thought it best to avoid the
imputaton of selfshness." An inquiry by cable
why and how the secrecy was prematurely
broken has brought rather indefinite response
seeming to put the blame on the University
Presses, which published the book in England.
No such charitable view is taken of the matter
on this side of the water.
There is still more important disagreement
between the English and American revisers,
however, for it relates to Scriptural passage
deemed Of great consequence to the doctrine of
the resurrection. This is the part of the nine
teenth chapter of Job, standing in the King
James Bible thus
For know that my Redeemer liveth and that He
shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and
though after skin destroy this body, yet in
my flesh shall see God whom | shall see for myself
and mine eyes shall behold and not another"
When, in accordance with the method of pro-
cedure, the book Of Job was sent in printed slips
from the Englishmen to the Americans, the
rendering was as follows
'But know thatmy Redeemer liveth,
And that He shall stand up at the last upon the earth
And after my skin hath been thus destroyed
Yet from my flesh shall I see God;
Whom I shall see for myself
And mine eyes shall behold and not another"
In the ensuing monthly meeting of the Ameri-
can revisers. each having previously had copy
for consideration, nearly the whole session was
devoted to discussion of this familiar piece 1t
was at length agreed to recommend the follow
ing form for adoption in the new versions
"But',as for me; know that my Redeemer liveth,
And at last he shall stand upon the earth;
And after my skin, even this body is destroyed,
Then without my flesh shall see God;
Whom l. even l. shall see on my side
And mine eyes shall behold, and not stranger"
1t will be seen that the differences are not mere
verbiage but have distinct bearing upon the
doctrinal value of the language. More of time
and correspondence were spent on these few
lines than on any other entire book in the Bible.
Learned arguments were exchanged, and the
controversy lasted through more than two years.
The Dean of Canterbury wrote that as the
passage had place in the burial service of the
Church of England, and had thus become dear
to English Christians, it ought to be left as
nearly undisturbed as the consciences of the
revisers would permit. Prof. Howard Osgood,
who led the Americans in this especial matter
held firmly that its form in the old version con-
veyed an incorrect doctrine. Neither body
would give way; but, as the Englshmen had the
final decision, the work of the Americans being
advisory, the thing appears in the published re-
vision like the second of the above quotations
This is not satisfactory to the Americans and
the likelihood is that an edition Of the Bible
containing this and other revisions adopted by
the Americans but rejected by the Englishmen,
will be soon issued. The breach caused by the
premature issue in London will greatly further
Such n