The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1886-07-20

| iCSpcCCS
u'''ereht from most other popular transla-
"ohs' II there was any reason WHY reyi-
sers should spend so much time unon
It, that reason is found in the fact that
the Bible is religious book-a hook
winch people are expected not merely
to read and cast aside, as they do tho
latest novel or poem, but to study
carefully and accurately 1t follows
that all means not inconsistent with tho
lowing character Of a popular book
should be used to make the TRANSLATES,
an accurate reproduction Of the oripi
nal. The revisers recognize the use Of
ltallc type ASA means of this sort. We
are familiar with it. 1t does not offend
the eye. 1t does not interfere with
contaEuous and fluent readino r
ought to be retained, therefore, wherever
It actually conduces to the more ac-
curate expression Of either the meaning
or the Characteristic style of the original.
PROBABLY half or more Of omissions of
italics in the Revised Version are in
''ioil VI luiS principle.
Let me illustrate this by few instan-
ces taken ut random from Malachi:
~ My name shat be great among
the Gent'les' (Mal. i. I'D, the Revised
version translates my name is crcat,u
putting "shall be" into the margin. The
re''sers, therefore here recognize the
Tact that it is a matter of d,fFnranco ~
Judgment whether the copula shoull
oe supplied in the present or in the
future-that is whether the passage is a
statement of fact ora prediction. The
IN sertlon Of the word is to make out
the sense in English not merely tn.
insertion of the copula which is implied
IN the Hebrew, but is also the insertion
OF the opinion Of the translator TINT tho
statement is that of a fact and not predic-
ton. | think that this opinion is correct.
but mani'estly it is supplied as a matter
" critical judgement, and not implied in
the Hebrew Of the clause. The itali-
ciz'ng o 1t would indicate this. and
would thus avoid the stating of the
conjecture as il it were fact. In this
instance, the'matter is somewhat loco
important, because the marginal note
calls attention to the difference of opin-
ION as to the tense but in hundreds OF
similar Instances there is no marginal
note.
w Pour you out a blessing, that
there ShdU not be room enough to re.
ce'ce IT," (Mal. iii. lO). Here the
Revised Version omits the italics exceot
with the last three words. The Hebrew
is mere obscure. Different scholars give
several different explanations Of it. The
tranSla'ors of King James take one ex-
plana:'"n, hut make it evident that the-
obtain it by filing up from the Hebrew
The reviscrs take the same explanation
ana conceal the fact that it is mostly
explanation. If one should rctrans.ate
the h'ng James version into Hebrew
ne would be very likely to hit upon the
exact words Of the original. If he shouId
re'rans:ate the Revised Version ho
would obtain result entirely different
from the original. a%
CD very different instance is ga son
MS father, and q servant his
master'' (Mal. j. g.. Here the revision
omits the italics. In this case it is true
that the word his is implied, which
would ordinarily be sufficient reason for
leaving it undistinguished. But here It
IS also true that it would be as natural
Tor the Hebrew.to express the pronoun
as for the English that the ommission
'I 1t is mark ofpeculiar style that this
popularity may be transferred into per.
Fectly good English "a son hoooreth
father, and servant his master ~ tbat
The popularity is at least Undated in
the cid version by it's noting that the
word his is supplied; that it is buried
out of sight in the revision, and that the
'est ofretranslation world here yindicate
the old and condemn the new. Is
The instances thus objected to must
De nearly half as numerous as the YER
'es in the Old Testament. They NAV
be relatively fewer in the New Tcsta-
nent. In this matter the Bible of King 4.
James, with all its superfuity of italics
8 greatly to be preferred to that Of the @
'evisers. with its thousands upon thous-
'nds of supplied conjecturss, undistin-
,nishable from the other part Of the s