Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 42:168 (Oct 1885)
Article: Professor Briggs On The Revised Version Of The Old Testament
Author: Talbot W. Chambers

BSac 42:168 (Oct 1885) p. 736

Professor Briggs On The Revised Version Of The Old Testament

Rev. Talbot W. Chambers

In the Presbyterian Review for July there is an elaborate article by Dr. C. A. Briggs, of the Union Theological Seminary, upon the concluding portion of the Revised English Bible which appeared in May last. The paper displays a great deal of learning and ability, and a great deal of something else which perhaps it is as well not to define distinctly. The attack is upon the whole line, text, grammar, exegesis, translation, metrical division, higher criticism, and every thing else. And not only are supposed errors specified and emphasized, but their origin is sought in the motives of the revisers. The tone throughout is that of Omniscience criticising the efforts of a lot of schoolboys.

One serious misconception underlies all that Dr. Briggs says. He writes as if the authors of the revision had undertaken to make a new translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, whereas it is well known that the charge committed to them was simply to correct the authorized version, and in doing this “to introduce as few alterations as possible consistently with faithfulness.” Had the Professor remembered this, he would have forborne not a few of the criticisms he has allowed himself to make. The writer can testify that again and again at the meetings of the revisers suggestions were made to which it was said in reply, “Yes, if we were making a new version we would agree; but we are not, and as the authorized has the ground, it is not worth while to adopt the proposed change.” Now, it is quite possible that this course was

BSac 42:168 (Oct 1885) p. 737

wrong, and that it would have been much better to make the version de novo throughout; at least, much may be said on that side of the question. But the revisers had no option. The terms under which they were appointed marked out their course, and it is unfair and unreasonable to compare the results thus attained with those of scholars who are left at complete liberty to choose whatever idioms, phrases, or words they may think best fitted to express the meaning of the Hebrew. It should be added, however, that a version conducted on the plan and in the methods proposed by Professor Briggs would have 116 prospect of success as a popular enterprise. It would, indeed, be welcomed by scholars and serve a useful purpose to intelligent students of Holy Writ, but the people at large could never be induced to accept it as a substitute for the common English Bible. The repeated experiments made during the last two centuries settle this point beyond controversy. The quarrel of Professor Briggs is not so much with the revisers as with the necessary limitations under which they acted.

I. The first ground ...