New-York tribune., 1879-03-01
BIBLE REVISION.

POSITION AND POSSIBLE DUTY OF TIE BIBLE
SOCIETY.
70 the Edttor or The Trtbrnt.
SIR: The recent letter in the columns Of THE
TRIBUNE from the Bishop of Western New York on
the subject of the new translation or revision Of
the Bible has attracted my attention. Its sub
jcct to which have given much thought. aud,
although IN what have 10 say shall express my
self with proper dlflence, ] hope it may none the
less be worthy of consideration
The fact that revision Is deemed necessary nat
urally prompts the reflection that the English YER
sion we at present enjoy j. held TO be more or less
defective as an exact rendering Of the original.
But upon such a serious subject | must agree with
Bshop Coke that "all will inquire / as to the
merit of the proposed amendments and tho ueCC lty
Of popularzing tIem' Ibis follows simply from
the fact that the present version Is one implicitly
accepted by large body Of people in America and
elsewhere, and that to unnecessarily make acIauge
which will involve q radically different meaning in
any pa sage would be deplorablc and without cX-
cuse Even a SLIGHT change, which might not alter
the sense while disturbing the STYLE and changing
the Thythn should be deprecated, because tech
nicay better rendering is less important 10 those
who use the Bible than the conservation ofthe IDEAS
which the existing version baa called forth INT
with regard TO the new version we must believe
that due attention tas been paid to these facts and
that the discriminating feeling displayed by
Matthew Arnold in his introduction 10 Isaiah 40
70 4G Will have had ts Influence uuon the pages
Of the new version o. IL Issues from the English
University presses. On the other hand, in reply to
the first point made by the Bishop, it seems also
true that we are bound TO examine the merit Of th"
old version equally with the new. In fact the new
version is the result of feeling Of this obhgalon
on the part of the ransiatOrs and their supp1Itef7
The opposition to the revision develops the dct that
The clergy are committed 70 the existing English YER
sion in certain important details and where change
in the text may subject them to adverse crltltlsm
or at least give valid reason for dissenting from
their preaching. In this case it seems inevitable
that the revision will be rcsIsedln certain eccleN-
astcal quarters with the probable result OF
division among the lalty.
Without any definite information TO any par
tcu'ar changes introduced by the new version. |
may cite the following passages III Illustration
In Chan. 40 Y. 10 of Genesis the Hebrew Bible las
as follows adopting the Roman letter.: "dd Bee
tabbok Shiloh" The correct translation is: while
he shall resort to shiloh The present version OF
the English Bible has 1t: until Shiloh come.
While the English version takes Shiloh as the name
Of person. in reality it is the name Of place, and
70 Is not the subject uomnatve of the verb, but
allocative. The mstransIation is apparent from a
luded 10 in the book Of lmuelI and To- which the
hebrews resorted aud where tho tabernacle was.
Afterwsrd shiloh grew to be a synonym for "a
place If worship among the Jews. The verse itself
vas evidently written after tie detection of the ten
tribes from the House Of Judah aud a~ On argument
against that detection insisting that the only "Cit
mate rrlsr was Of the tribe of Judah at whose cap
tal tie temple was This instance i- alluded to 10"
Matthew Arnold, together with others all of which
are used a, prophecies %. the coming Of the Messiah
by tie clergy The application Of these pToIueclc-
VIII h,comfp' p'auy irrelevant upon change ln their
wording L. another case, THINK not noticed by
Mr.. Arnold, chap. H. 3. l3 of Zacharah. The word
"to.,r is translated "Dottrr' il should obvious
" be treasury" Strauss has pointed ont the way
in winch the writer Of ST. Luke's Gospel plays upon
the double meaning Of the Hebrew word and suit~
subsegU M events to previous statements But u
Chan H. ~ Isaiah. verse II. the Hebrew word: "hg
c'naL" s.. clearly m>trsnslat ID In our Eng -h ver
sion, which renders IL "a vIrg.u' necccuns the
d,fnitve article "bG' and giving restricted -cisc
20 the word G'm0b. 90 which Iu reality means " "a
young woman" without any reference TO her un-
married oc married condition. The clear sense Of
the verse is that IcribUton VIII F>i; the people DID
the shape of foreign enemy before the young wife
If the prophet shall bear "a som This case, vl'tue.
corrected u the new version OF not, j. one OF th.
strongest kind rs II is very obvious and The present
reading h,, been made important from q dolma;ic
point Of view Being very easy TO detect the error
I.a,l.d the belief that the original translation
ha. been Intentionally t5m1~ret with.
VIII such difficulties before us, tie second point
In Bishop Coke, letter demands our consideration.
lis that: - The grave practical question must
be- met whether our common English Bible would
not after al be better without changes ia view Of
the fact that if trivial thew can be SPAR !, "EI" #