THE English revisers were fifty-two in number, but twenty-seven were appointed to the Old Testament, and twenty-five to the new. The number of American revisers was about thirty; nearly two-thirds as many as the English. All the principal denominations were represented. The "Companion" well remarks:—
"No sectarian version can succeed even within sectarian limits. There is a commonwealth of Christian life and scholarship which transcends all sectarian boundaries, however useful and necessary they may be in their own place."
We have said that if a version could be made which would exactly and fully suit any one man, it probably would not suit any other man. In any accepted version we must consent to some things which we would prefer not to have retained. Of the Revision the Companion again says:—
"It is a compromise: every member had to sacrifice some of his preferences to the majority; but for this very reason it is more likely to prove generally acceptable to the churches."
There were two reasons why the American Committee had to make the greater sacrifice. 1. They were in favor of giving a more literal version and of making more changes than were the English. 2. They were in the minority, and it was possible for the English Committee to control the matter entirely. Yet, in justice to the English Committee we must say that they did not exercise their power in an unfair manner; indeed, the Americans seemed quite well satisfied with the consideration they received, which was as great as could reasonably be expected. A great many of the changes were suggested by both committees, each independent of the other, so that, if only one had been engaged in the revision, the result would have been much as it is. The following list of American suggestions adopted by the English will give a fair idea of the influence exerted by this Committee. In Matthew, 126; in Mark, 46; in Luke 62; in John, 84; making in the gospels, 318. And something over 100 changes in the gospels, suggested by the American Committee, were rejected; but all these, in the gospels and elsewhere, are put in an Appendix in every copy of authorized editions, where all may examine them who desire to do so.
To further show that the changes made are not novel,—that they did not originate altogether with these committees, Dr. Riddle, one of the New Testament company of revisers, and a contributor to Lange's Commentary, has counted the changes made in certain chapters, and given the number of the same which had previously been adopted in the Commentary, published 1864 to 1871.
In Matthew 25—changes 62; anticipated in the Commentary, 30.
John 7—changes 85; anticipated by Lange, 60.
In letter to the Ephesians, changes 314; anticipated 229.
These were changes adopted by the first English revision, and the Commentary was the American edition. In some portions of the New Testament the correspondence is even greater than above.
There seems to be no doubt that the work of the American revisers is more faithful to the original than that of the English. The following from an English paper concedes this:—
"Several of the recommendations of the American Committee might have been adopted with advantage. The general excellence of the suggestions of the American revisers is undoubted, and they ought not to have been so often neglected. What is most obvious is the small amount of material change. A conservative spirit pervades it. Perhaps this was a prudent measure on the whole, when we consider the sensitive orthodoxy of the English church, or rather of those members whose influence was paramount among the revisers at the beginning, middle, and end. But might not one scholar of proved competence, belonging to that same church, have done as much within ten years? Probably, indeed, he would have considered it a waste of time to spend years on the homeopathic revision of a venerable translation. Yet the volume, with all its shortcoming, will do good, exorcising from the minds of many simple people, the notion that the old version is infallibly inspired. It is a step in advance, preparing the way for a new and independent translation from another critical Greek text."
This conservatism on the part of the English was only to be expected. It is accounted for in the following words of the "Companion":—
"The Revision must be faithful first to the original Scriptures, and next to the idiom and vocabulary of the Authorized Version. Sometimes these two kinds of loyalty come into conflict. In unimportant or doubtful cases the English revisers allowed their regard for the old version and for English usage to overrule their regard for the Greek text, and felt bound to do so by the Canterbury rules. This is very natural, if we remember that the old version is largely incorporated into the liturgical and devotional literature, and that the Book of Common Prayer is a greater power in England than in the United States. The American editions of the Prayer Book depart from the English editions in some of the disputed particulars of language, for instance in the change of 'which' to 'who' in the Lord's prayer. The American Appendix then represents closer adherence to the Greek, and greater freedom from old English usage."
The Examiner and Chronicle, N. Y., has been gathering the opinions of Baptist ministers throughout the country. As a general thing they are quite favorable to the Revised Version. As a specimen, and one of the most briefly comprehensive criticisms among them, we copy the reply of Rev. Z. Grenell, Jr. of Detroit, Mich.:—
"The presumption is in favor of the New Version. It goes without saying that the outcome of ten years' work by such men as have made the Revision must be an improvement on the version of 1611. This expectation is justified by even the most superficial examination. If the Revision did nothing more than make such corrections as Christian scholars have for years agreed ought to be made, it were a great advance. It does this and much more, and is therefore worthy of first place in the pulpit, the school, and the home. And yet it is needlessly faulty. Conservatism and timidity have conspired to retain blemishes which ought to be found least in the book we call the best. Why the revisers should 'cloke' Matt. 5:40, set the most significant interrogation point of John 12:27 in the margin, and 'had rather' have bad grammar in 1 Cor. 14:19, like Paul, in Phil. 1:22, 'I wot not.' Such unreasonable retentions seem almost to merit the mysterious objurgation still found in Jas. 5:1, 'Go to now.'"
Our remarks on this subject, though brief, have already extended beyond the limit we at first marked out for them, except a few points for adverse criticism which we purpose to notice next week. We repeat, that we are greatly pleased that this work has been done, believing that it will add much to the knowledge of the people at large of the sacred Scriptures. It is to be expected that many will read from mere curiosity. But as Paul rejoiced at the preaching of the gospel of Christ even when it was preached of contention, so we rejoice when people search the Scriptures, whatever the present motive may be. For, they may be benefited while reading, in a manner which they did not anticipate; or they may lay a foundation of Bible knowledge which will give the preacher of the gospel, at some time, opportunity to awaken up their religious sensibilities and alarm their consciences.
And finally we again recommend to our readers the "Comparative Edition" as most convenient, and the surest means of becoming acquainted with the changes actually made. Many of these changes are suggestive, and open up a line of profitable thought to the reader. If you trust to two books, a separate copy of each version, your examination and comparison will not likely be very close, and you will suffer loss accordingly. If you have a copy of both constantly open before you, as is the case with the Comparative Edition, you can scarcely fail to compare the two in your daily reading. You will of course, read more slowly, and examine more closely, and this is exactly what most readers need to do.