New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-19

the time Of Henry VIII OF England. and was then
gotten up Tor obvious lessons Let us look
AZ the facts. The Douay Version and its revlsions
Vuigate-itseif only version though of great
an9gy cs ana " Dage NO EFFORT is maze IN '9
Greek, or 10 compare them with the Fulgate or
ola the received text Beyond reasonable
doubt, as faithfully preserves the original as the
manuscripts discovered in comparatively recent
regarded. Thus. in the of both Testuments
attention Is paid TO documents which may indeed
The time Of Christ Himself %S to Is un'"4"SaD "o"
The original Douay Version was the result of the
labors of four men, and each revision represents
only the individual scholarship and thought OF one
its modern editions have borrowed largely from
tho Authorized Version. and most OF their altera-
The original basis of the Revised Version was
by Henry viii and his emissaries The Authorized
Version, founded on Iyndales and other transla-
lions was me work OF a Church represented by its
most learned divines and scholars in age when
abated. and the versions which most largely con-
t[Elouted 10 changes made in Tyndale's text were
These represented two extreme types OF thought
shows that they were anxios t n TeySers OF l6i
translation, independently of the tenets OF the
be correct The Revised Version is the pssnt ny
several hundred ve6 o SIN OF the best minds for
fat6ers and me versions quotations from the
body OF men who thought that advantage should be
, iaHtn OF az thqt critical study has brought 10
hght. ana VINO felt that such a work can nnSar ~
accomplished by organized efforts of mIoer 6e
revisers have been able to Consult aTp The
az b autVoTes not at the disposal of the compiler
has been carried out with desire to give
se " GId OF Sod IN English nearly as possible
whatever with Henry VIII his errors no or h elton
history Of the English Bible Where tan In the
effect on b excSpt as Prosecutor. had any
90 dis, sum up our conclusions. the principal points
OF Ginerence between the two versions are: P
version
V ssdc Version on, excludes the Apocrypha
uses words and expressions which require sx
hianatlon while the Revised Version strives 70 mt
The original object OF the Douay Version s 1SQ3
formers This "bacs tahen with the text by re-
~ IT'S modern editors, who have introduced oxtsp
more like that of the Revised version sba In4S S
ctenf e ~, Ihis has been done to such an
Ca a1 have passed Protestant Bibles "''o"
tine tommentaries on Po te difference Of all is in
lions Of the Douay Bible in accordan"c viii it en-,
sentence IN Father EarIys letter Neither viii h
ipI ,u T allow private Interpretation of the
whether this view Is b nGi enter into the question
ChurGh alone or discuss the points OF dnrtr,ne
Of the Dcuay Bible there is n tabie ~ AZ , tne end
no tSHts ia support Of various doctrines held nv
texts there quoted in support Of tho most o1 al inc
in 81 ds.h OF mat Church shows that though
Revised Versions differ the differences Dpoay 2nd
texts. as supDortino m a1,ect the validity of those
reference TO which the; are uuotad ~ tlIlc win
Goot eonsdrue them in support OF the Catholic
tWeen the two versions ' ulli'Fehce be-
- We have now traced the origin and bistor 80
the TWO versions. and ~ comparison batua OF
ra npaTay and faithfully represented enabled tbc
freshly shows forth the Word of ~ ~ ana most
VINO SPEAK the English language Our readers nose
.IS6e Ior themselves which Version mos 1911
;tpproaGhes this ideal and in forming an onininNS
W Yqllu Assn t4eln IN recognize the fact tI9t ra
pised trarslations Of the Holy scrptures m1et re-
IN %hcb h IL mSr be light is thrown
It which have been preserved and tba ,e texts OF