The times., 1901-04-26
Revised Bibles.

1t is reported that several revised edi-
tions Of the New Testament have been
brought cut. two or three of which are
supposed to meet the need of the
American people for a translation of
the Gospels into their own language.
One is called, in fact, THE Modern
American Bible" another the 'Twen-
tieth Century New Testament" and
another The Modern Readers Bible.
The reverent and moderately conserva-
tive American might hope that this
thing would not come to the ears of the
English people and cause US to be ridi-
culed, but for the fact that there is
movement of the same sort in London,
which has resulted in a work called
THE New Testament in Current Eng
lish."
When a revised New Testament was
first contemplated by daring innova-
tors, there were people who said that
they would just as soon have revised
mother, and this probably continues to
be the opinion of numerous Bible read
ers, and others not particularly devout.
The majestic and pure, if slightly
archaic. diction of King James version
is good enough for most of US. How
ever. there were a few passages which
were changed in meaning by the new
light afforded by the revision, and to
those who are particular about the lit
eraI acceptation Of every sentence in
either Testament, this was distinct
gain.
But this ultra-modern development is
not the result of deep scholarship or a
wish To get at the real meaning of the
book. 1t is simply an attempt To adapt
the language Of the Bible 10 the COM
prehension Of the average twentieth
century mind. An enthusiastic advo-
cate of the new version says that one
reason why he wants the language
changed is that the average young per
son cannot speak seventeenth century
English nueruy enough TO pray In it
without making mistakes. and that the
new plan will conduce 10 greater liveli-
ness Of prayer meetings. This, 10 many
people. viii appear very dubious rea-
son indeed. The prayer meeting is an
institution whose universal usefulness
is greatly To be doubted. When Christ
gave his promise TO gatherings of two
or three" he did not add that he would
be in the midst Of every assembly Of
from a score To a hundred persons in
which all petitions must partake some
what of the nature Of oratory. There
has sprung up Of late years a practice
Of encouraging. and even practically
forcing. young Christians to get up and
talk about religion in large companies,
or endure the reproach Of not being
willing 10 bear testimony" If the new
version cf the Bible is going to make
that sort of thing any more common, it
viii be best TO stick 10 the old. There is
nothing likely to be pleasing TO God in
peoples pouring out the inmost feelings
of the hearts in the midst of crowd.
The New Testament contains several
statements TO the effect that prayer
which is effectual is private.
But The Modern American Bible,
to judge by certain specimens of its
style is anything but an Improvement
on the English Of King James version.
Here is a text which reads:
DO not use vain repotitions like the heathen
do
It would be just as much of an i'm
pTovement to use the double. negative,
and make another text read:
There amt no sign going to be given TO this
generation
The simple narrative Of the Gospels
has been read TO ignorant and illiterate
people, and they have understood II: it
has been recommended as an example
OF the purest English by many learned
men; and several Of the greatest au-
thors the world has ever seen have ad-
mitted that Bible reading was the fOun-
dation Of their literary style. 1t seems
as the world might get on without a
new version in modern American, for
the use Of people who cannot under
stand good English. 1t may facilitate
the instruction Of the average small boy
in the Scriptures, TO tell him that Moses
used the expression Jimmy Christ
mas" and that "an eight-shilling
piece" was found in the mouth Of
biblical fish, as one Of these new YER
sions has it, but the question is. what
kind Of instruction is he getting by this
patent method2