The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-09-26
The New Revision or the English Bible.


It Is understood that the two companies
one composed of English scholars and the
other OF American-which have been Co
operating for several years in revising King
James's version OF the New Testament Scrip
lures. have nearly finished their work. The
Old Testament com mpanies have still much to
do; and it is not improbable that the re-
vised New Testament will be withheld from
publication until the entire work shall have
been completed. It is safe to say that the new
revision, whenever it shall see the light,
will excite much attention in all English
speaking communities. a certain class
happily, class daily diminishing in num-
ber-wlll be certain to- regard it, from the
start, with disfavor. 1t is made up OF wor-
shippers OF the letter, to whom the tradi-
tional version has all the sacredness OF the
inspired original, and who would prefer to
cling forever to an erroneous rendering
rather than modify the phraseology to which
their ears have been accustomed. A like
tendency to make fetch OF the words OF
the Bible, even il they are not the words OF
the writer's or a proper equivalent, led,
in the seventeenth century and after
ward, 10 superstitous regard for the
received text Of the New Testament, and
interposed resistance to an enlightened
textual criticism, founded on the compari.
son OF ancient manuscripts. In similar
spirit, certain Swiss theologians voted in a
Synod that the Hebrew vowel points. as
inserted by the school OF Buxtorf, are
divinely inspired. 1t is curious, though
quite exDlicable, that the most conserya-
tive sticklers for the old version unaltered
are found among those who entertain ex-
treme theories relative to the inspiration OF
the Biblical writers. 1t is they who are
most afraid Of unseltling, il not their own
faith, the faith OF other people on the
writers OF Scripture, by the suggestion that
errors are found in The popular translation
of the sacred books. ..
There is a more reasonable apprehension
in the minds OF some that the new revision
may so alter the existing revision as to de-
priye it Of that idiomatic yigor and racy
favor which belongs to King James's Bible,
in common with other translations from an
cient authors that were made at the same
era. Our Bible reads as il it were first writ
ten in English. 1t is free from the stiffness
and colorless character which renders 4
translation, however correct, feeble and un-
impressive. Better some mistakes. it is
often felt. than the loss OF that simplicity
and. vividness which interests even the
humblest reader Of the old version. Who
would be willing to part with those terms
Of expression, those telling phrases, more
commonly Saxon, which live in the men,
ory Of all whose vernacular is the English
tongue? Those who entertain an appre-
hension that the style Of the Scriptures is
to be materially altered, or its characteristic
beauty marred, may rest assured that the
new revision will do no such thing. The sole
aim OF the reYisers is to remove errors.
They do not ask to improve the style Of
the translation, and consequently leave un-
touched those features OF the current YER
sion which endear it to all readers OF iudg-
ment and taste. 1t is fortunate circum-
stance that the changes will be fewest in
those parts OF the Bible which are most IA
miliar-the Gospels and the Acts. Here
the call for revision is less than is the case
in the Epistles. It is likely that the reader
Of the ncwly-revised version will very sell
dom have his ear offended by the alterations
introduced, at the same time that, in nu-
merous instances. by the substitution OF one
word for another, or some other slight
change, the meaning OF the sacred author Is
more correctly and intelligibly given. The
revision will be like the skiful cleansing or
restoration cf an old picture, where the
reverent hand OF the artist is careful to sac
ritce nothing that gave beauty and attrac-
tiyeness to the work which he retouches.
One OF the principal sources OF the
changes which will, unquestionably, be
made in the new revision, lies in the better
Greek text which lies ut its foundation.
The false veneration for the tertuS receptus
has long since vanished, and the researches
OF scholars have established, in numerous
instances, a reading which differs from that
text. In a multitude OF cases, to be sure
generally Of minor consequence as regards
doetrine-it is impossible to arrive at a
satisfactory conclusion. There Is balance
OF probabilities. and equally learned men
may not coincide In their Judgment as to
the preponderance OF proof. But in all
those passages where 1t Is practicable to
come to sure conclusion, it Is obviously
required to conform the translation 10 the
text rs actually determined. 1t is an in
tolerable thing-wel might almost say en-
unprincipled thing-to keep; up, by COM
mon consent, readings OF an author, espe-
cially OF Biblical author, which have been
fully ascertained to be false. The moditica-
tions OF the authorized version which will
spring from the source here described will
constitute a substantial improvement in the
forthcoming revision. 49,. .r.,.....
Another source OF Improvement will be
derived from the greatly-advanced scholar
ship Of the present day, as compared with
the state OF Greek philology few centu-
ries ago. The Greek tenses-to give a
single illustration-arc far better UNDER
stood and Disseminated from one another
than was possible in the day OF King James's
translators. Neither that Solomon OF his
age, as the obsequious translators styled
him, nor the learned men about him, un-
derstood as we'll as q modern school-boy
the distinction between the aorist and per-
feet, or the aorist and imperfect. Their
renGerings. therefore, are not unfrequently
inexact. The shade Of meaning is some
times lost in our version, where it can be
easily, and ought to be, restored.
The removal Of obsolete English words,
or OF words used with an obsolete signifca-
- zf.xs nokz ~fn%s