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

The publication of the Anglo American Re-
vision of the New Testament will probably
rank among the great events of the nineteenth
century, 1t has long been agreed that the
English Bible of 1G11 does not faithfully repre-
resent the original Scriptures. A century so
full OF human energy could not be expected to
neglect the vast and difficult task of Bible re-
vision. After ten years of labor the united
English and American committees present to
public of eighty millions of people, the
fruits of their conscientious industry in re-
vised New Testament. In making rapid es-
innate OF the value of this revision, L shall con-
fine myself chiefly to the English of it. Crlti-
cisms OF the uses the revisers have made of
various readings of the original would require
more space than the Evening Post could give
me and would not perhaps, be very profitable
to its readers. The new revision will be
judged by its English; and the changes which
the revisers have made as result of their
study and comparison of various readings will
not, believe, exercise much influence upon
the final decision respecting the merits of their
work. At all events l shall in the present ar
ticle, assume that the changes caused by a
change of text will be approved without
extended controversy.
The longest of tue omissions expected to be
made by the revisers comprises the last twelve
verses OF Mark, and there is pretty general
agreement among scholars that these verses do
not belong in this Gospel The passage is
printed, with an explanatory marginal note.
The omission of there are three that bare
record in heaven" in John l., 81, was to be
expected, the passage having ceased to have
any value on account of being generally dis
credited. A wise fellow told us some months
ago that the story of the woman taken in aduI-
terry had been rejected in the new version; but
it is here, also with an explanatory marginal
note. 1t is one of the best rendered passages
in the book My reader is invited to turn to
the eighth chapter OF Johns Gospel, and no.
tice the superior elearness and strength of the
new reading.
There are some clear gains to be credited to
this revision. 1t gets rid of number of mis-
leading typographical errors which seemed to
have acquired kind OF sanctity. 1t gives us
a uniform spelling of proper names, and in two
important passages (Acts vii, 45 and Hebrews
iv., s. it substitutes Joshua for Jesus, accord
dwell upon these gains, but they are important
enough to make us patient if the revision
should in other respects fall below our desires
Furthermore large number of obsolete words,
or words obsolete in the sense in which they
are used are changed for Ineligible terms.
Let is no longer used in the sense of hinder;
worship" is no longer used at Luke xiv. 10,
in the sense of respect shown to man; wealth"
gives place |. Cor, x, a, to ,oeltdre; "quick"
at Heb, iv.. II, gives place to Icing; where
the word ''usury" has not Objectionable mean
ing it has been replaced by interest; where
''yirtue" means simply po,csr the latter word
is used; Moses is no longer spoken Of as
''proper" child but as a goodly; "by and by"
gives place to Immediately; writing table, re-
tires aud Driting-tablet comes in; debate at
Rom, l., 30, yields its place to strife; instead
of Thought" in stake no thought for the NOR
row" we now read an1iGus; at Luke iv. 20,
Jesus gives the book not to the minister but
to the attendant; the word conversation"
which is not in any place used in the author
lied version in its modern sense, disappears al
together and conduct takes its place except at
Phil, ill.,, 20, where citizenship is very properly
employed; and so on through long list of
changes, the effect of which is to make the
text ineligible without introducing changes
into the general character of the style. The
language of the New Testament in this revi.
sion is sufficiently old-fashioned, one would
think, to please any one who attaches the least
Importance to intelligibleness in revelation.
What the committees are pleased to call "in-
nocent arcliaisms'' abound. Old forms such as
hath, 1chiles, Thoroughly, and holpen are re-
tanned; and the relative aohich is still used
when the antecedent is person. The dignity
and solemnity of the translation have been re-
spected in this preservation of forms and
phrases which are supposed to give to the sa-
cred volume the reverence of age. Perhaps it
is safe to say that the committees have been
over-anXiOus to preserve the venerableness of
the English Bible The word MroagbLy has
scarcely right to be retained, and the use of
,ohich when the antecedent is person seems
to me more conspicuous for its bad grammar
than for its venerableness. mean, of course
that the bad grammar rather than the vener-
ableness attracts the attention of the modern
reader.
There are some difficulties which the revls-
ers have not overcome. 1t was easy to change
the word deputy" to pro-coRsut, execution
er" to soldier Of the guard, "chah. berlain" to
treasurer Of the city, and Easter" (Acts xii,
- to Passover; but the names of COINS meas
ures and weights seem to have presented an
insurmountable difficulty. Perhaps it might
have been overcome as to money if a common
currency had existed in England and America.
And yet the revisers have so explained these
terms OF weights and measures in the margin
that the general reader will not need to refer
to a commentary. 1t may happen that here or
there the new word has not been well chosen;
but candid judgment must. l think, concede
that the new revision contains large number
of improvements; and every man who believes
that the Bible should be an Ineligible book
should try to make a just estimate of all the
changes in this revision which tend to make
the sense of Scripture more plain to the gen.
eral reader. This New Testament does not
naad n nl nlnssaru Or a L