Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-04

flowed camel" The change indicated
by the italics above is mother of those
made in the revised version. and it for
the first time makes sense Of a passage
which has none the less been employed be.
cause it had no particular meaning.
The question of the coinage troubled the
revisers Considerably. They have not been
able to ehink of any method by which the
] coils of the New Testament could be rep
resented so as toconvey more accurate idea
of their true value to the average reader.
They admit that in several passages the
use OF the word "pence" or ''penny p
makes the text either unintelligible or lu.
dicrous. For example, take the story of
the good Samaritan, Luke x, so 81. We
read there that this compassionate person,
having conveyed the robbed and wounded
traveller to an inn, con the morrow took
"out two pence, and gave them TO the host,
+" and said Take care of him and what
"soever thou spendest more, I, when l
" come back again, will repay thee" Now
the only idea suggested by the deposit OF
two pence as a fund for the subsistence OF
a sick man at a leading hotel, is one OF
absurdity. The revised version in
marginal note refers to another marginal
note in Matthew xviii, IS, and it is
there stated that the word translated
"penny," denotes coin worth about
eightpence-halfpenny.n Very little is
gained by this explanation, however, for if
it had been said that the Good Samaritan
made deposit with the landlord of the inn
of thirty-four cents, which is twice eight
pence-halfpenny, the statement would Ger.
tainly not have conveyed the impression
of profuse generosity any more than the
original twopence does. In some places the
revisers have employed the word g shilling"
to give more affiuent air to the nara
tive, but the general impression that the
Jews were afflicted with dreadfully con.
tracted currency, or with peculiar notions
of charity, is not removed by these innova-
lions.
a large number Of changes have been
made which without necessarily altering
the meaning of the text, and sometimes
while improving it, yet impart an air
OF strangeness to it which will naturally
offend many people. Thus in the sermon
on the mount the frequent expression in
the authorized revision " take no thought, !"
is altered to be not anxious" Now
while this change is highly judicious in
some places, as in the 34th verse, it is by
no means SO opposite in other places, as in
the 9th and 3lst verses. In the Lords
Prayer, Matt vi, 9-l5, the expression in
the authorized revision "deliver us from
"evil reads in the revised version de.
liver US from the evil one. The justi.
fication for this change is not at all ap.
parent The implied substitution of an
anthropomorphic diabolism for evil in the
abstract is in fact distinct loss instead of
a gain.
a change which may be regarded as of
some consequence seeing that it completely
transforms passage which has been freely
employed for didactic purposes, is that
which has been made in Acts XVI, 2S 90.
the authorized version here is as follows ::
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost
"thou persuadest me to be Christian.
"And Paul said, l would to God, that not
"only thou, but also all that hear Inc this
"day, were both almost and altogether
"such as l am, except these bonds" The
revised version reads thus: "And Agrippa
6. said unto Paul, With but little persua.
sion thou wouldst fain make me Chris.
titan. And Paul said, / would to God,
"that whether with little or with much,
"not thou only, but also all that hear
"me this day, might become such as am,
"except these bonds.' 1t will be seen
that this is complete reversal of the sense
given in the authorized version, which is
doubtless incorrect; but it is curious that
the revisers could not have made their
change somewhat more gracefully. We
prefer Dean Affords translation, which is
Lightly art thou persuading thyself that
"thou canst make me a Christian"
Agrippa SCOTS at the idea that Paul can
convert him, and this is the meaning which
should be brought out as fully as possible.
There are a multitude of changes which
we have not noticed. Many Of them are
required by fidelity to the original. Some
are real alterations of weighty texts. Yet
others are not only unimportant but of
doubtful taste.
We have thus glanced at the principal
changes suggested or actually made by the
revisers. As we have seen, some of these
changes do not proceed any farther than
the introduction of doubts into the revised
version, while in some instances the spuri-
GUS verses are printed side by side with the
genuine, and the explanatory note in the
margin is far too brief and vague to afford
the ignorant reader any just idea Of the
true nature of the evidence for the anthem
ITCHY of the text thus placed before him.
We have also seen that while perhaps the
changes are not so radical or extensive as
seems to have been anticipated in some
quarters, they are yet more important
than has been represented in orthodox
circles. In several cases they do 60 to
the very heart and marrow of doctrinal
points, and in a still larger number of in
stances they effect alterations which must
provoke controversy. It is not our in
tention to discuss the minuti@ of the re.
vision here, but merely to direct attention
to salient points. Only careful and pa
tent comparison and study can reveal all
the changes which have been made, and
show their full significance.
Tho ra,,;raJ x-arc;ov 1vhnc Al.