Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1881-07-02

Il james the First, and published 10
! 1911. was itself largely Il revision of
I previous translations, and its advo-
Gates are thereby debarred from OBJ
iecting to revision as an abstract
question. Having decided that re-
vision violates no principle, the
way is clear to discuss its expedi-
ency. The proper procedure here
is to- determine the qualities Of u
good translation and then apply
this standard to our current ver-
sion. A good translation, then, of
the Scriptures must be adapted to
the apprehension of the masses of
the people it must be clothed in
clear language and simple style.
This requisite is undeniably met,
in the main, by King James
translators, though some words and
turns OF expression used by them
are now obsolete, or have changed
their meaning, and are unintelligi-
BILE or misleading to most readers.
"Another quality demanded is
accuracy; but as this can only be
attained on the basis of a correct
text, an adequate translation in
wolves the settling upon a text
which is believed to represent what
was written by the original authors.
When our version was made the
science of textual criticism was in
its infancy, and it is notorious that
later discoveries and investigations
have shown that the Greek text
used was detective. While these
deficiencies are not of such char
aeter as to give US reason for alarm,
| it is but candor to admit that they
| exist, and that our translation does
not meet fully the requirement of
accuracy.
''The last quality to which | shall
call attention is that of faithfulness
in rendering the Greek into Eng
lish. It's with no purpose Of mag
nifying the defects of our version
that i state the well-known fact
that there are palpable errors in
translating particular words, and
especially in the handling of the
lenses, the definite article, and the
propositions. 1t is easy enough to
ridicule attention to these points as
the pedantry of scholars, but to a
thoughtful mind these cannot seem
trivial mistakes.
at is admitted, then, that in the
qualities of simplicity of language
and style, accuracy and faithfulness,
our translation is more or less de-
fective, and this admission made
by all competent judges is sufficient
argument for revision; observe |
do not say the revision. We are
now in a position to consider the
claims of the revision that has been
offered us by a company OF English
and American scholars, and to de-
eide whether it cerrects the errors
of King James version, and gives
Us something that we are willing to
accept in its stead. 1t is not my pur-
pose to advocate this revision, but
only to indicate the point of view
from which it ought, i'll my judg-
ment, to be regarded, and the
method by which its claims ought
to be settled. 1t will perhaps best
serve this end to consider the OBJ
jections that have been raised to
the consideration even of the sub
ject, and which prejudice the whole
case.
"I need not stop long on the OBJ
lection that this work has been
done principally by English Episco-
palians. with a few Americans of
different denominations, and that
our particular Church had no repr,-
sentative among the revisers.
am not prevented from accepting
the revision or translation made III |
the time of King James because / /
know so little of the translators and
their methods, neither do | care
when, where, or by whom this re-
vision was made; the only question
is to ascertain whether it is a better
translation of the Word of God.
"Akin to this is the complaint
that the American committee
played only a secondary part. This
is not true, except to the extent that
the English company had the final
vote on any suggested changes, Civ
ing the Americans the privilege OF
any readings they might
prefer. Even if the complaint were
true, and our patriotism felt ag-
grieved, we would certainly not al
low this sentiment to override our
reverence for the truth and our de- I
sire to have it in its purest form.
GA third objection, which is urged
with much persistence, is that the
revisers have destroyed the rhythm
and style of the Bible, and have in
this way broken the spell of litera-
ry associations that cluster about
this great classic of the English Ian
guage. If we were discussing the
merits of the revision, we might
show that the objection has little
basis in fact. Moderns words and
idioms are almost entirely exclud-
ed, and we have no doubt but that
the judgment of literary criticism
will commend the revisers for their
skill in retaining the colouring of
the old version in style and Ian
guage. Further, the objection has
more apparent force from the inn
plication that the adoption Of the.
revision means the extinction of the
present version. 1t needs no argu-
ment to prove that it will still re-
main as 81 work of literature and
will have permanent influence as
the standard of the language.
Aside, however, from what has
just been said, l. urge as decisive