New-York tribune., 1896-06-07
TIE ENGLISH BIBLE CRITICISED.

H. W. Horwill writes n vigorous and aggres-
sive article for THE Contemporary review
calling for new English Bible. The points
that he makes against the authorized Ehg'iSn
translation commonly called the King James
Bible. will sartlc those who have been taught
to regard 1t as an English classic. But II mus,
be confessed that there Is some good
sense In what he says Everybody will admit
tbot nm English version is required not for the
scholar. but for the plain uneducated man. AS
Rishon WestcOtt puts IT, the function OF the
translator is ito place the English reader as
nearly as possible In the position Of the reader
"of tbe original text" But this authorized YER
sion does not do that. Paul and the 1our
Eyoneests wrote in the vcrncuar Of their
dav. II never entered into their minds to re-
write In the language Of 2S5 years before But
the authorized English version Is written IN the
tongue spoken 2S5 years ago; ana the feVlseu
Version which was made In order 10 modern
Ize II. contains such obsolete words rs 'flrlna-
mcnt" "daysman." "bruit," divers. "mete'
"halt" and "husbandman" rs well as numerous
words that suggest an erroneous meaning 10
the average reader. How few OF those hol
scholars there are who know that "coinIorrer
means "strengthener, or that minister means
servant" In both translations words winch
in the course OF centuries have acquired spe
cial technical signiication are used as the equiv
| alont OF terms which at the time the DOCKS
| were written had simply an everyday cohoqniai
meaning.
one Of the most serious faults or the English
| version in the opinion OF Mr. HOW'LL IL ls
| archnic style which, OF course, was entirely
| absent from the Scriptures themselves Nine
| .'pcoplc out Of ten he says. reading IN the
.'Gospels yc' for you. and doeth' for does >
..suppose that Jesus Christ. both In HIS dls
| courses and In His conversations, was accus-
toned to use stted. unnatural speech ra'her
| more quaint than the fashion or FRIENDS.
| SO far as this impression Is created. 'he au
| thorzcd version gives n false Idea of the Bipl'
And what IL almost as bad. II has led the MN
istry TO adopt an unnatural, obsolete style III
| their sermons that Is today doing much 10
| allcnate the people from the Church.
| II IS said however, that. though the au-
! rhorzed Bible contains obsolete terms ana
faulty translations. II Is NJ least an EhgHSn
| classic to touch which Is little less than sacr-
lcrc. II Is. indeed. we'll known that many ad-
mirc the English Bible "a piece OF lleratur"
who either doubt or disbclieye its claims 10 be
| n Divine revelation. Mr. llorwill thinks that
| this view Is not borne out by the facts. Inc
| simple saxon style or 1nc blDI', H' 'isS' -
marred by such Iatinisms as "sanctify for
make holy" and "mortify' for put to death.
and such simplicity rs IT possesses Is due to the
characteristics Of the original II is the Bible S
| message that has commended II 10 The English
speaking people, and II has won its way III
| spite Of its style. not because Of IT, The world
| has outgrown tho old belief that the Bible was
| intended 10 teach science: but there are yet
| many who think that It Is somehow model or
| literary style. Il view which would have been
very novel TO man named Paul OF Tarsus.
or the 32G tongues in which the Bible is clrcu-
| lated 325 are In the common everyday speech
| OF people now living. And one-nnmey. the
| English Blble-is In the tongue OF people who
| lived nearly 300 years ago. In view OF these
| facts Mr. IIorw proposes that there shall be
az intervals Of hundred years or less n COM
| plctc new translation of the Bible In the living
vcrnacular of the day and that the present a'i-
thorlzcd version be preserved simply as text
book Of the language. II Is one thing how
ever. to propose and another 10 accomplish;
and in spite Of the good sense OF much that he
says. he will find It hard to impress his views
on the Engsh-spcnking world.