Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-05-21
BIBLICAL REVISION.

Ii DdDD6uSO vaAO OshSA AiSA-NAA15 sAAS's sAA~ /
RECORD. UNION contained two quite con-
Trajectory expressions OF opinion in regard |
TO the new translation of the New Tesla. !
ment. A local preacher, Mr.. Rice, said,
in letter to this journal, that it was
" naturally to be expected that after two I
:. hundred and seventy years the English !
translation of the Bible would need to |
Sc be revised But we shall have the same
g Bible as before, and the accuracy of the
" text, compared with other ancient books, !
sswill be wonderfully demonstrated. In
another column appeared dispatch from
London, giving some account OF slashing
criticism of the new translation, just
published by the Standard. The English
critic does not at all agree with the posi-
ton taken by Mr.. Rice. He is equally
orthodox, but he holds that the revisers
of the New Testament have played havoc
with the text that we shall not have " the
&c same Bible as before )" and that, in fact,
we shall have Bible so changed or
mangled that the religious world may be
expected to reject it altogether. 81 The
i" impression produced upon the public
/" mind,' says the critic, &c is one of dis
I" appointment and dissatisfaction. The
revisers he asserts, have been hypercriti-
cal. They have introduced changes for no
no better purpose than to satisfy
fastidious purism. To do this they
have destroyed the harmony of "sen
fences treasured up in the popular mind,
and enriched beyond description by
81 the pathetic associations OF hundreds of
"years.' In short, it would seem that the
revisers have made sad mess of their
work, according to the Standard. One of
the objections raised by this erudite critic
is that st. Paups praise of charity, une
"qualed in its own kind for ringing ryth-
''mical eloquence, is mangled and made
unacceptable by the senseless substitu-
I" ton of the word love for charity.
We are sorry that the critic should have
ventured upon this specific charge, for his
own sake, for it exposes his ignorance of
Greek most conspicuously. The truth is
that the Greek word karttaS, which in the
authorized version is translated charity y
lin the 18th chapter of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians) does not mean " char
ity," and does mean "love," and We had
supposed that every school-boy knew so
much. II, therefore, it is of any conse,
auence to have the real meaning of the
authors of the canonical books, the new
translation is right, and the objection of
the Standard is preposterous And in
truth it is clear that all snch objections are
most irrational from a common sense stand
point, though the whole work of revision
is anomalous from an orthodox standpoint.
Thus We find Mr. Rice saying that it was
naturally to be expected that after two
hundred and seventy years the English
8 translation of the Bible would need to be
''revised Why was it naturally to be
"expected y If she doctrine Of plenary
inspiration is not TO be completely aban-
doned, nothing was less to be expected,
since nothing could be more in conflict with
that theory. If the New Testament is
inspired, as the orthodox generally assert,
how is it that it needs revision? VIII
it be alleged that the original text only was
inspired : Then we ask. Which of the
original texts was inspired For there
are no-two alike, and it is perfectly clear
that not more than one can be infallible.
But we know that the received version is
full OF bSunders and mistranslations and in
Temptations and forgories. Were all these
the results OF ms piration? Or, because they
have been hitherto taughtas truth, isit neces.
sary to the maintenance of Christianity
that they should continue to be taught
after it has been known that they are not
true The current theories of inspiration
need revision quite as much as the Bio!e
does. For centuries the authorized version
has been declared by the Christian Protest
ant Churches as inspired. These churches
have taught thatevery text and every word
in it must be accepted. Yet now, when the
pressure of criticism has compelled re-
vision, it is cooiiy alleged that g after two
g hundred and seventy years" such re-
vision was naturally to be expected"
It's very clear that this view, however APP
plicable to an ordinary translation, is heter-
odox in the extreme when applied to what
is called "the word of God" But it is
melancholy fact that there are few subjects
upon which more shifty and elastic opin.
ions are held than that OF biblical inspira-
ton. As rule preachers do not realize
that plenary inspiration is a dogma essen
tial to the stability of'their system. Take
that away and the keystone of the arch is
gone yet they will give it up to all prac
teal intents whenever pressed, falling to
realize that without it they cannot sustain
those other dogmas which nevertheless they
endeavor to preserve. OF course revision
of the Bible implies confession that it is
not inspired. For to say that the original
text was inspired, but not the translation,
does not help the matter at all, but only
shifts the difficulty one stage backwards.
The notifications of the theory of inspira
ton which have been put forward in order
to save the situation are abandonments of
the whole case in effect, though those who
make them seldom perceive the scope of
their own concessions. The fact that dog
mas have been founded upon texts which
are now questioned, or declared to be spuri-
ols or mistranslated, of course deepens
the perplexities of those who wish to be-
lieve in spite OF their reason, but if the
affected desire to have the exact original
text alone is a sincere one, of course all the
consequences of such revision must be
cheerfully accepted, It is plain that
modern criticism has already exnosed the