The New Version of the Bible

One thing is likely to happen in 1880, and that is, the appearance of the new version of the Bible, upon which so many able men have been so long a time engaged. In an article in the Churchman, the writer says it is expected that the revised New Testament, at least, and possibly also parts of the Old Testament, will be published in the coming year, just 500 years after Wycliffe issued the first complete version of the holy Scriptures in the English language.

In consequence of the finding of some older manuscripts, and the more critical study the New Testament has of late years received, the writer, who seems to speak with authority, states it is not too much to say that in more than a thousand instances fidelity to the true text now ascertained requires a change in the present authorised version. He adds, however, which it is important to note, that in most cases the change would be slight.

With regard to the nine years’ work of the revisers, now drawing to a close, he says when an important reading is clearly a mistake of the copyists it will be discarded; when it is uncertain its doubtfulness will be stated in the margin.

One great class of revisions which will be made will be the rendering of the same Greek word by the same English word throughout. For instance, while in one passage the word ‘Atonement’ occurs, the same word has in many cases been translated ‘reconciliation;’ the word translated ‘hope,’ which occurs thirty-two times, is rendered as ‘trust’ eighteen times; and ‘Hades’ and ‘Gehenna’ are translated by the same word hell in every case except one. The writer adds this significant remark, that “the issue of the new version will compel a revival of the study of the holy Scriptures.”

In all this, there is reason for congratulation. It is a matter of satisfaction that after all the unsparing criticism, and diligent investigation of the past 500 years, the changes required by additional knowledge should be “slight.” It is a proof that in all material respects, in the common version, the Scriptures are in our hands in the form in which they were delivered, and although the emendations in the new translation will be valuable, they are not essential to a right understanding of the holy oracles in their substance, when they are diligently studied.

As to an American article on the subject, in which the writer declares the result of the revision to be the confutation of the Bible’s claims to inspiration, brother Gunn may rest content that it is a mere newspaper misrepresentation, reflecting the prepossessions of the writer. It is a construction of the facts resting now on no broader grounds than similar theories indulged in for the past hundred years particularly. Even if put forth by the revisers themselves, it would be of no weight.

The inspiration of the Bible is not a question of scholarly criticism. The evidence of it rests upon facts in history, features and peculiarities in the character of the Bible which are beyond the reach of the most ingenious or plausible hostility; and as to which the revisers themselves, not knowing the truth, are no authorities, while they may be excellent judges of ancient idioms and old MSS. and Greek and Hebrew caligraphy.