p. 318 | THE REVISED VERSION by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 21, 1881

THE REVISED VERSION.

By Editor

WITH some care we have examined the Revised Version of the English New Testament; and, as many of our readers have not the opportunity to thoroughly examine for themselves, we propose to give them some of the results of our examination.

There are very many foolish criticisms of this Revision floating through the papers. The remarks of Dr. Talmage of Brooklyn, have been extensively published; but they are not to be spoken of as a criticism. Dr. T. can be nothing unless he is sensational. There was not a reason in all his remarks; they were just such as any prejudiced person could make without having much knowledge of the subject. And so in many other cases.

It is well to have one idea corrected. Our common version is called the Authorized Version, and King James' Version. In strict truth it was neither. King James barely restricted the labors of those whose hearts were set upon the work. He gave them rules to follow, some of which they followed to the detriment of their work, and some of which they did not follow, whereof we have reason to be glad. It was never authorized; it was accepted; and time only can determine whether the revision shall be so generally accepted. Of this there are great chances for doubt.

It was not to be expected that the revision would fully suit anybody. If it exactly suited any one man it would, probably, suit anybody else. Therefore the most narrow-minded and illiberal will naturally find the most fault. While all cannot be suited, unless all will come to an agreement, we are free to express our conviction that, in many respects, it is an improvement upon the common version. On the other hand, there are many things in it with which we are not pleased. But this would not cause us to lightly throw it aside. All candid persons must acknowledge that there are many objectionable things in the old version. But, even with this acknowledgment, they do not stand on an equal footing in regard to finding public favor.

The old has the advantage of possession. It is our firm conviction that, if the two were presented together, both newly made, neither of them in current use, with the evidences for and against fully set forth, the revised would be almost universally accepted as the better version. This is a safe judgment, for the revision has corrected some prominent errors of the old, which must be admitted by all.

Some have objected that it is not wise to make any changes at all, because it is admitted that no change has been made which affects any doctrine of the gospel. But this objection is only plausible. The canon of Scripture should contain, as nearly as is possible to get them, the exact words given by inspiration, neither more nor less. Other words may be unexceptionable in sentiment, or pious in intention, but if they were not spoken by Christ nor written by his inspired followers, they have no right to stand with the holy Scriptures. We rejoice in the fact that no doctrine has been affected by the critical research of all the learned in the last two centuries. The providence of God has guarded the sacred words in a wonderful manner.

Every one who examines the most marked changes, and inquiries into the reasons, must be struck with the fact that these reasons have not recently come to light. As has been said, they have been the common property of the learned for many years. Let us test a few prominent cases. Greenfield's Greek Testament and Lexicon is in very common use. Very few ministers are without this valuable book. His notes are based on the criticisms of Griesbach, to whom the world is largely indebted for the results of his Biblical research. One of the most noticeable changes in the revision is the omission of the doxology of the Lord's prayer, Matt. 13. Turning to the Greek we find it marked as "entirely rejected as spurious." Dr. Clarke, who is conservative on most such questions, and who lacked some of the advantages enjoyed by the recent revisers, thought it should not be omitted; but he says, "The whole of this doxology is rejected by Wetstein, Griesbach, and the most eminent critics. The authorities on which it is rejected may be seen in Griesbach and Wetstein, particularly in the second edition of Griesbach's Testament, which is fully of opinion that it never made a part of the sacred text. It is variously written in several MSS. and omitted by most of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin." This is cited merely to show that its rejection is not a new thing with the recent revisers.

Acts 8:37. This verse is so rejected as spurious that not a word remains to be said in its favor. Alexander Campbell left it out of his edition of the New Testament, though the denomination which he founded has extensively used it as "the good confession," sufficient of itself to entitle one to the privileges of church membership.

1 Cor. 6:20. The Revised Version gives this verse thus: "For ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body." The remaining words—and in your spirit, which are God's—are omitted. Griesbach has this also, marked as spurious. Dr. Clarke says: "Almost every critic of note considers them to be spurious." The reader will notice that the argument of the apostle is complete without this clause.

1 John 5:7, 8. The omission of what has been termed the "three heavenly witnesses." This text has been rejected by all late authorities. We propose to give next week Dr. Clarke's argument proving that it is spurious.

And if these passages are spurious, what right have they to stand in the sacred text? If the learned have sufficient evidence that they are unauthorized additions to the sacred Scriptures, why should they be retained in the Scriptures to deceive the unlearned? Such reasons as these are sufficient to show that a revision was necessary, or at least may prove to be useful.