Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1881-06-09
fro BE CONTINUED
Tho New Testament.

The new translation ofthe Scriptures
Is not without opponents, and even de-
nonncers, as will be seen by the Lons
don Standards review Of the revised
New Testament. The writer of the al
ticle asserts shat whatever scholars may
think Of the labors OF The reyisers, the
impression produced upon the public
mind is one Of disappointment and dis
satisfaction.
at is deeply 10 be regretted" the
writer goes on to remark, that the re-
vlsers, Judging BY the work Just pub.
lished, have apparently forgotten the
conditions under which the task was
entrusted to them. II is obvious that a
great many Of the alterations adopted
have been approved BY reasons of mere
literary criticism, which make US rather
skepticnl az to tie infallibiIity or even
good taste Of the revisers. Where no
material change m the sense or sub
stance Of the authorized version had
been shown to be required by revisers
and .iapP6pi6e me 'gfdnrnfar 'br passdgis
which have struck deep root in the
hearts and memories OF the English
people. One word has been substltu-
ted Tor another at the within OF the New
Testament Company; moods and lenses
have been shifted about 10 satisfy some
pedantc schemer OF syntactlcal sym
inetry; sentence treasured up in the
popular mind and enriched by pathetic
association Of hundreds Of years, has
been tortured aud cruciied into precise
grammatical accord with the latest re-
| Gnements ofcrlicU, and thus been robbed
of all It's true value. The system upon
which the revisers appear to Lave acted,
IN our judgment, Is altogether erroneous
and deplorable. .
The writer then points out the posi-
ton held by the Scriptures among Eng
disappearing people. "They have been
knawn By .!!..as.s asA leyea hy them for
centuries" he says, 'and 1t is rash and
reckless to shake this noble growth OF
centuries by attempting TO harmonlze
il With correctness OF self-opnionated
scholarship or regulate il by doubtful
standard Of taste, accepted by motley
combination Of theologians and profess
sors. Even the Lords prayer, which
every English-speaking child learns to
lisp al its mothers knee, has not been
spared. The revisers have handled Il dis
a bold commentator might handle a no.
toriously corrupt chorus in Eumenides.
81. Paul's praise OF charity, unequalled
IN lis own kind for ringing and ryhthml-
cal eloquence in the old version, IS
rnangled and made irrecognizable by
, senseless substitution oil the word Love
. for Charity. The meaning IS really
. obscured rather than e.1c.dated by this
change. while the music of the sentence
, Il irretrievably lost, Alterations oil
, dictations Of the old version, involving
q no gain in sense or scarcely percep.
I nble one. swarm in the revised edition
. and in almost every instance 1t is I'M
! possible not to feel that the origlna
. translation, however inferior 10 thos'
OF the presen, reyisers in precise ans
exhaustive scholarship, textual or gen
i eraI, were infinitely their superiors Il
= The rare and precious art OF writing mu
! steal and masculine English prose-
= Had they purged the sacred text OF er
n rors which had crept into It and place.
j where it was necessary, the yariorun
q readings IN the margin, they would hay
A perTormed useful and acceptable
:. work. But in the effort TO obtain dr.
q and merely mechanical accuracy Of eS
i preston, they have so revised the nc
J blest book in the English language
d 10 deprive ii Of much Of its beauty. an
y they have destroyed many OF ITS hlsit
is rical associations" !.
n In conclusion, the Standard write
IL saws itremains now for the reyIsers
h re.revise what they have produced
a. Ii this new revision is evert TO be gene
ally used, and TO supercede the autho
an ,zed version, many Of the ALTERATION
ey that have been made must be diSeardt
-----s 80 .--------
III IA