The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-09-19
NEW PUBLICATIONS.


The Revised Edition of the Bible. New
York: Harper & Brothers; Portland: Lor-
ing, Short & Harmony The new version of
the Old Testament has been better received
than was the previous translation of the
New The reason of this is not far to seek.
The translators have profted by their expe-
rience. They have been wise enough not to
repeat the mistake they made in their first
venture. That mistake was this. The New
Testament was marred by minute criticisms
and strained scholarship, Men who had
studied Greek till they had forgotten their
English, or at least all sense of its idomatic
force and beauty, were allowed to substitute
literal Greek idiomatic expressions for the
racy English which had become household
words. The result was failure, sad, dis
appointment to the reader, and a sound be-
rating of the reyisionists. The dissatisfac
ton of the public was so general, and ex
pressed in such unmistakable terms, that the
committee could but heed the admonition.
They were wise enough to do SO, and to
turn over a new leaf in their note books
when they began their work on the Old Tes-
lament. The result is, therefore, highly sat-
isfactory. Where they have erred it is in the
same direction, but the number of errors is
comparatively small. A few examples, how
ever, remain, just enough to demonstrate the
folly of such departures from the terse and
incomparably vigorous rendering of King
James's translators. Compare for instance,
the good, old and tried translation VANITY
and vexation of spirit" with the new bathos
of VANITY and striving after wind and sew
eral others of similar import. The fact is,
that our old version was made in the age of
Shakespeare, the age when the alertness of
the English mind and the genius of the En-
glish tongue were at their highest point.
There is in the history of every people
time when they are at their best, just as it is
with individual men. With the English peo-
pie that was the generation which gave us
the commonly received version of the Holy
Scriptures for sacred lore, and Shakspeare's
works for secular. We are now speaking of
literature and with special regard to its form
and pressure, more particularly, all that is
included in the idea of style and idiomatic
vigor.
The English language had reached just
that point of development which fitted it to
be the .vehicle Of conveying the sense of the
sacred writers. That the translation was
then made, we doubt not is to be regarded as
in accordance with the order of Gods will
and mercy which is over all his works. What
remains for our and future generations, is
simply to amend the translations of those
passages, not many, which were inadequate
ly rendered in the original version, and to
omit gradually such terms as have become
obsolete
Of course, our knowledge of both Greek
and Hebrew is, in some respects, in advance
of scholars of the 10th century, and it is our
privilege as well as duty, to avail ourselves
of all aids to theIperfect meaning or sense of
the Greek version. In this respect, the la
bors of the revisionists are often rerviceable,
and in the Old Testament are generally
placed in the margin where they serve as
commentary on the received text Till that
text is settled by the light of the later criti-
cism and further comparison, it is wise to re-
fer even doubtful passages to the margin,
rather than incorporate in the text, unless,
indeed, the error of the text is incontroverti-
BILE.
After ALL the number of passages in which
important errors have been detected is not
large. In most cases. the difference in the
sense between the new and the old is slight
and often insignificant. In such cases, why
disturb our associations with passage, and
distract our attention by new reading
which, after all, is but slight variance and
of less import.
= In the Lords Prayer, why change "deliv-
er us from evil into deliver us from the
evil one?" The gain, if any, is not enough
to compensate for the jar produced by the
jolt of the change. But as we have said, this
mistake has not been often repeated in the
revision of the Old Testament, and we can
therefore, safely predict that this part of the
revisers' work will give more satisfaction
than their uncalled for and unwelcome pre-
sumption in needlessly changing familiar
and sacred sentences in the New Testament
AT best, however, both versions are to be
regarded as ventures, or attempts in the di-
rection of further and final efforts TO apply
the highest criticism and scholarship to our
old and familiar version.
Cicero De Oficiis Libri Tres. Edited by
Austin Stickney, A. NJ. (Nsw York: Har-
perl& Brothers; Portland: Loring, Short &
Harmony. A new edition of this celebrated
treatise was in order, as the notes add much
to its yalne. Addressed to his son Marcus,
this work shows Cicero at his best. In pre-
yious essays he had employed the dialogue
as convenient form of conveying his senti-
ments, whether his object was to commend
the study of philosophy, discuss the criterion
of truth, or present the leading features of
the great schools of thought. In the Tuscu-
Ian Disputations Cicero discussed the most
important practical questions. In this work,
De Officiis, he treats of didactic or advisory
morals. His views are based on the system
of Stoics, which Cicero thought most eonso-
nant with the dictates of pure reason undis-
turbed by the passions. He was also par
tin1 ndhnront Of tho Nnm Acadnnnu md