The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-22

course these brethren have written in the inter
est of their own work, and, therefore, they are
nes so likely perhans &c see Us faults, ii faulty
!. De, as are tnose who look at it from another
point of view.
I need scarcely inform you that since the
year 1611 many rich treasures have been found
in the shape of manuscripts and other antiqui
ties which throw flood of light upon the Bible.
The Codex, which Tischendorf found In the con-
vent of Mount Sinai, and the Vatican Codex
are of great antiquity. The Sinaitic manuscript
contains the New Testament complete, and the
Vatican manuscript, which is believed to be
somewhat older than the Sinaitic, contains all
the New Testament, except the pastoral epistles,
the epistle to the Hebrews and the Book Of
Revelation These manuscripts date back to
about the middle Of the fourth century. Other
manuscripts containing the Greek text of the
New Testament have been discovered which
were inaccessible to the translators of 1911.
Then, too, Biblical criticism has made rapid
strides during the past fifty years It never
before reached such perfection. Great Hebrew
and Greek scholars have been busy at work, some
OF them pious and some impious. They have
been digging out roots. They have been going
down to the foundation of things. Surely it is
most desirable that we should know what they
have discovered. We should gladly welcome
any light which these long buried lamps may
throw either upon the text Of Scripture or upon
its meaning. In view of these and other consid-
erations a revision of the Bible seems desirable
is it satisfactory This question involves more
than an accurate translation. because an accurate
translation might be far from being either good
or satisfactory. AS to the revised New Tesla
ment, the judgment Of English-speaking Christ
endom is divided. That division is not about
equal. II is likely that more than threefourths
of Bible readers have pronounced upon it an ad
verse judgment. This believe to be certainly
true of the pulpit. I am not aware that the re-
vised New Testament has grown in favor during
81 fN1r re f,,y
spects is freely acknowledged. Its superiority
as translation in many passages is gladly rec
ognized. But, as whole, it has failed to com
mend itself to the better judgment of the Chris
tan Church. AS help to the better under
standing of the old New Testament it is grand
success but as substitute for the DID, it seems
to be grand failure. The hope of the revisers
is that it will in time suppant the authorized
version, just as the authorized version sup
planted the. Bishops Bible. and the Geneva BIZ
Bile, and all other versions. Possibly this hope
may be realized; but, il so, it will not be until
long after this generation has passed away.
AS to the Old Testament it is perhaps too
soon yet to express definite judgment. One
ought to read it through and note all the
changes before coming to any settled conviction
upon the subject This, suppose, most of us
have not done. Nor is it likely to be done very
soon, for, as compared with the revised New
Testament, the Old Testament has had a very
light SALE But few, comparatively, are in pos
however, about it, concerning which one who
has looked at them with a good degree of inter-
est, may speak with some little confidence.
The first thing to be noted is that the Old
the errors and mistakes of their brethren of the
New Testament company. True, they had not
so many difficulties to encounter. They did not
have to ponder over variety ety. of ancient
is based throughout upon the tradi-
tional Hebrew" or Massoretic text which,
is a correct copy of the original documents,
and one worthy of all confidence" This strong
statement of Professor Bissell does not meet the
approval of Professor Briggs. For he says that
I'VE can no moro rely with childlike confidence
upon the common Massoretic text for the Old
Testament than we upon the so called re-
ceived text of the New Testament The New
Testament revisers abandoned the received text
of the New Testament for better text If the
present revisers have not sought a better text of
the Old Testament, in our Judgment, they have
failed in their duty, and their work will not be
accepted" And, sure enough just as the Old
Testament revisers were bringing their labors
to close, we are informed by the Dean of Can
terbury that unhoped for treasures are being
brought to light Besides Dr. Ginsburg's Mas
sorah, manuscript of the Old TESTAMENT said
to be at least four centuries older than any in
gogue at Aleppo Portions, too, of very ancient
codices have been acquired both by the
British Museum and by the Imperial
Library at St Petersburg But until they have
been studied, we do not know what will be their
bearing upon the present text n And
then the labors Of the Old Testament company
have been retricted to the revision of the trans
lation OF exactly the same text as that which lay
before the revisers in the days of King James,"
In view of this statement concerning
the Aleppo manuscript, there seems to be some
ground for the criticism of Professor Briggs
But without expressing any opinion as to the
correctness ot the text which the revsers
have followed, there can be no doubt that the
revision is, in many respects, a great improve
ment upon the authorized version. The Old
Testament company understood English as
we'll as Hebrew. They had respect for sacred
associations. Where they correct manifest errors
they do not shock US If we should say .droves
of horses" instea6of ''linen yarn" II Kings X,
2S), and warm springs" instead of mules
(Gen. xxxvi 24) and ''curls of hair" instead of
galleries" (Song of Solomon vii, 81, and
dainty morsels" instead of wounds" prov.
xviii, s., then it is we'll to have such errors cor
rected.
Whatever may be said of the work of the revis
ers in other respects, the form in which their
work appears is worthy of commentator. Chap
ters and verses are dispensed with, and yet the
new version is SO arranged that one can readily
turn to any passage that may be desired The
poetic books are printed in poetic FORM and
thus they are made not only more attractive, but
more instructive 1t seems strange, however
that many of the poetic prophecies are print
ed AS if they were prose.
If the statement made by one of the reyis-
ers be correct viz. that in translating, ''they
they have often preferred to leave untouched
slightly inadequate rendering rather than run
the risk Of offending sacred associations, or in
Producing urseemly words o. phrases'-if this
be true, it seems as if the rcVisers are guilty of
little less than breach of trust Such action,
or rather non action, does not comport well with
the language of the same writer when he says:
''They who are engaged in what is the revela-
ton of the infinite Am must spare no pains to
give to their rendering of its words the utmost
possible accuracy"
While the American branch OF the revision
committee did much faithful and valuable
work, yet the glish members used their veto
power unsparingly. They insisted, for example,
in using the word corn" instead of grain"
when manifestlY. as the American bre thren