Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-06-21


known TO be hostile to ne,o versions, and
welded even to the blemishes of our au-
thorized translation. The. selection is
made from scholars, some Of whom were
engaged in new translations themselves,
and who therefore were not interested in
sustaining the merit Of the common YER
sion and whose concessions in favour of
translation in many respects different
from their own, ought to have the great
est weig hit with the candid hearer.
My first is from the great Seldsn, whose
authority is an host The English
translation is the best translation in the
world, and renders the sense of the erigi-
mails best. The translators took an excel
lent way. The part of the bible was Civ
en- TO him who was most skilled in a par
ticular tongue. When they met together,
one read the translation, and the next held
in their hands some bible either in the ORR
ginal or inFrencl1, Spanish, Latin, &c. il
they found any fault they spoke" Selden
died in 1854.
| 9. At grand committee for religion,
under Oliver Cromwell in 1866, it was
thought oxpedicnt 10 examine the present
translations, to discover its Mistakes
and, if needful, publish better. Lord
Whitlock of the treasury was ordered to
superintend the business, and DR.. Walton,
DR.. Cudworth, Mr.. Clark, and other first
scholars Of the day were consulted about
it. After many meetings and much con-
sultation, the design was dropped, and the
committee allowed that the public version
was the best extant.
8. DR.. Walton, in the prolegomena to
the pofyglot, that English pyramid of sa-
crad learning has the following confession.
"The sacred oracles have been translated
into almost all the European tongues in
modern times. But among them all, the
English version effected under the auspi-
spices of King James, stands pre-emi-
nent.
4. To DR.. Walton may be added
Poole in his Synopsis Criticorum 1869.
SIN the English version published in l76l,
occur many specimens Of an edition truly
gigantic, Of uncommon skill in the origi-
nal tongues, of extraordinary critical
acutoness and discrimination, which have
been of great use to me very frequently in
the most difficult texts
5. Dr.. Doddridge is well-known TO
have given new translation in his family
expositor. In his preface, he says,
''there are so few places in which the ge-
neral sense will appear different from our
received translation, that some will per-
haps think this an unnecessary trouble.
But can by no means repeat II, &C.,
And he proceeds to give his reasons f T
this course.
g. Mr.. John Wesley in his preface to
his New Testament makes the following
concession: "Thc common English ver-
sion is in general SO far as l can judge,
abundantly the best mhich I haze seem"
Z. DR.. Lowth in his short introduction
to English grammer, 1863, says "the vul-
gar translation of the bible, is the best
standard of our language" This serious
testimony in the more valuable, as the
writer possessed the most delicate taste in
English composition, while known to be
profoundly versed in the intricacies Of
Hebrew and biblical learning.
8. DR.. Durel in his critical remarks on
Job. The DR.. was very fond of detec-
ting the blemishes in our version, and con-
,ributed much in his day to the elucida-
ton of dark passages in prophetic He
brew. Yet after all he owns-the chief
excellence of our English version consists
in its being closer translation than any
which preceded. Without the affecta-
ton of sublimity or the charge of vulgarity
it employs the language most proper for
popular benefit. 1t has also observed
due medium between the scruputosity of
the puritans on the one side, and the OBJ
scurity of the catholics on the other,
avoiding both the new turns Of the
former, and the obsolete words Of the lat
ter"
9. Dr.. White, Laudn professor
Arabic at Oxford, in sermon recommend
ing the revisal of our present version,
says, "When the authorized version ap-
peared, it contained nothing but what was
pure in its representation Of scrptural
doctrine, nothing but what was animated
in its expressions of devout affection.
General fidelity to its original is hardly
more its characteristic than sublimity in
ITSELF The English language acquired
new dignity by it; and has scarcely ac-
quircd additional purity since it is still
considered as the standard of our tongue.
If new version should ever be attempted
the same turn of expression should doubt
less be employed, for it is style no less