The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-05-25
PRICE 3 CENTS.


TO leave Hades untranslated and to employ the
term Hell exclusively as the English for Ge-
henna. But the general reader will be con-
fronted as he has never been before with the
difficulty of conce living that "invisible world
which is called 'Hades" The main stress of
criticism, from the conservative side, will bear
L think, upon the loss of rhythm in some pas
sages and the changes Of sense in others. 1t
seems to me, therefore, desirable to give atten-
ton at once to these features of the revision.
III the lover OF the music of the Bible can be
reconciled to the apparent losses which will ar
rest his attention, and if it be made clear that
the changes i'll sense ilumine accepted truths
and give us no new doctrine, the greater intel
ligibleness of this revision will soon commend
it to general approval. The reverence for the
style Of the Bible is somewhat wider than the
reverence for its teachings; and it has long
been habit among advocates OF the Bible TO
lay much stress upon its literary merits. Prob
ably, therefore, the sensitive point is not doc
trine but literary quality.
We were frequently notified in advance of
Its appearance that revised New Testament
would not contain alterations affecting any
doctrine therein taught. The practical ques-
ton is, however, whether or not the sense of
passages has been changed by revision And
here we have to remember that change of
sense is unconsciouSly defined in different
ways by theologiaDs on the one hand and by
general readers on the other. First Corinthi-
ans ill.,, II, reads in the authorized versien: eff
any man uetue lne tenple OF Gou, hlm shall
God destroy" The revised edition substitutes
deStrOyeth for "defile'. The change is scarce
ly a change OF sense to tho theologian who
knows that defte and destroy in the old text
translate the same Greek verb; nor does the
old Bible reader, who has learned from his
commentary the sense of the original, apprec-
ate this change as one of sense. And yet the
general reader, unfamiliar with theology,
knows that there is real and substantial
change OF sense, by all the difference between
the import of the English words defle and de-
strOy. The course of criticism upon this SUBJ
iect will depend upon the extent to which
critics lose sight of the difference of view here
pointed out 1t is plain that a critic writing in
the London Standard has assumed that against
the plain grammatical sense of its English
text, the authorized version teaches all that his
learning has read into it. He thrusts out of
the field all the gains in intellgibility to plain
men. He summarizes whole volumes of the
criticism which will be poured upon us during
the coming months in the following vigorous
paragraph:
"Where no material change in sense or substance
of the authorized version has been shown to be re-
quired by the revisers for the proper construction
OF the original, they have nevertheless thought
themselves Justified in mending the English and
improving the grammar of passages which have
struck deep root in the hearts and memories of the
English people. One word has been substituted for
another at the whim of the New Testament compa-
ny; moods and lenses have been shifted about to
satisfy some pedantic scheme of syntactcal symme-
tiy, a ncHttHcc lredSureu up IN the popular mini
and enriched beyond description by the pathetic
of hundreds of has been tortured
and crucitied into precise grammatical accord with
the latest retinements of critical labor upon com
parison of early manuscript texts, and thus been
robbed OF its true value
Now as a plain truth OF scholarship, the
"whim" in this matter was the mental proper
ty OF the King James revisers. They had a
passion Tor variety OF expression, and this pas
sion has made necessary the greater part of
the changes referred to by the Standard critic
We shall have to decide, of course, whether
we love the wrong word and the bad grammar
of the old version so much that we will not toll
crate the truth of revision. In
servative affection of the theologians
the new revision may fare badly: in SO lar as
tho needs of children and general readers are
considered in our judgment, we shall hesitate
long before condemning the right word and
the right tense merely because we have be-
come accustomed to the sound of the wrong
word and the wrong tense. The "pedantic
scheme" of variety of expression which the
King James revisers preferred and gloried in
ought not to cause the condemnation of men
who have believed that "syntactical SYM
metry'' is as becoming in an English as in
a Greek New Testament. The pathetic asso-
Citations of hundreds of years which are "tor-
tured and crucifed' by grammatical accuracy
are mainly mythical. Such associations sell
dom extend beyond the lifetime of an individ-
that old Bible readers will be sometimes
grieved to miss an old word or to encounter a
new one The average man must be slow to
believe that the true value" of Scripture lies
in rhythm or pathetic associations" or that
faithful translation can be honestly dismissed
as "refinements of crisical labor" We shall
not reach the real merits of the case at all un-
til the excessive conservatism of class of crit
les gets through talking about its pathetic as
sociations with the fruits of the ill-advised
pedantry of three centuries ago.
1t is true that the changes made necessary
by the fondness of the old pedants for variety
Of expression, do touch the sense OF some pas
sages, but for the greater part they touch it
with sunbeams. For example, in Matthew
XIV, 46, everlasting and eternal translate the
same Greek term. And the new revision uses
eternal in both clauses. Take longer passage
and grant me the indulgence OF parallel col
umns:
AUTHORIZED VERSION. REyIs ED VERSION
What shall we say What shall we saw
then? Is the law sin? then? Is the law sim
God forbid. Nay had God forbid. Howbeie,
not known sin but by had not known sin ex-
the law. For had not cept through the law; for
known lust except the had not known coreting
law had said Thou shalt except the law had said
not cOret. But sin tax Thou shalt not coret, But
ing occasion by the COM sin, finding occasion
wrought in wrought in me through
me all manner of c0acu- the commandment all
DisceRce. For without the manner of copetin0 For
law sin was dead. apart from the law sin is
dead. Rom. vii. 7,8
Now, plainly the rhetorical variety gained
in the old version by rendering the same Greek
terms by the English words last, concuptscence
and couet confuses the meaning of St. Paul.
The first two words are not broad enough to
express the intended meaning, and at whatev-
er cost in pathetic associations. the revisers
had to take and keep the key-word coUet in
each of the clauses.
The new revision is not, however, always on
the defence in this class of changes. Now and
then they add beauty to a passage while restor-
ing it to truth. In Revelations iv., 4, thrones
and seats are used in the old version for the
same Greek word. The new reading, "Apd
round about the throne were four and twenty
thrones" is not only the true reading, but also
the more musical one. Another gain of the
same kind is to be found at Hebrews iv. IA,
instead of passed into the heavens" we ire
now to read passed through the heavens
Still another is found at Matthew xiv, 80,
where the simple change of sin the clouds
to 'on the clounds' develops the grandeur OF
the passage. A gain by the opposite method
is made in L. Corinthians, xiv, 20. where the
old version gives us children" in both clauses
the Greek words being different. The new
text brings out the contrast by changing "chil-
lren" in the last clause to babes so as to
read "howbeit in malice be ye babes" There
are numerous passages in which change of
terms is not only dictated by regard for fidel-
ty, but is also a means of making the whole
sentence glow with animation.
In II. Cor, H., 1G, and ill.,, ., passages occur
in which the key-words are sufficient and suH-
9iency. The old version spoils climax by
dropping down in the last clause from the key
word and using "dble ministers of the New
Testament" Now this is a case of pathetic
but the whole passage is illumi-
mated by keeping to the plain road as the re-
visers do where they have the courage to print,
who also made as sufficient as ministers of a
new covenant" There is probably no other
passage which raises more directly the merits
Of the new and old. One doubts whether made
rs sufficient is good English, and we know that
i lacks the rhetorical rhythm of the old ver-
zion. For my part, prefer the plain truth of
ihe new to the rhetorical obscurity of the old.
somehow good translation must bring out St.
Paul's use of the figure of repetition-which,
)y the way, L have heard Mr.. George p.
Marsh speak of as the most effective figure in
rhetoric. The old revisers took no end of pains
20 obscure and suppress this figure, and many
eaders will get their first glimpse of the litera-
y style of st. Paul in this new revision.
The pecularites of style in the first three Cos
,els are not much observed in the old revision
The new revision restores some of these sup
PRESSED characteristics of expression. st. Mat
hew is allowed to say "kingdom of heaven"
While the other evangelists say "kngdom of
fod." st. Mark keeps his favorite Straight
vay,' and the substitutes of the old version,
Immediately" forthwith, - "anon,' and las
Don as" are rejected. Changes of this class
re an important gain, and generally they cost
lothing in lost beauty or impaired strength.