The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1911-04-29
THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

l'e MIMI JAMES 6IeI6.
Last Sunday the local Protestant
churches celebrated the tercentennial
anniversary Of the publication of the
King James version of the Bible. This
version. as all students of English are
aware, is a remarkable product, not,
however, SO much for what it says
as how 1t says it. The King James
version is not distinguished from
other translations because of the ac-
curacy with which it follows the
original. What has won for it such
favor is the fact that it is free trans
lation and was produced during the
golden age of English literature. 1t must
be admitted that however good it is
as a Bible, it possesses excellent liter
arv llerits.
Not long ago the Westminster
Gazette offered a prize for the best
essay on the influence of the Bible on
English literature. The prize was won
by student of Trinity College, Dublin
who began his essay thus: 1.-The first
fact to be remembered about the Eng
lish Bible is that it Is translation
and not the original Here in a prize
essay is a significant admission that
in the King James version fact has
been sacrificed for form.
1t must not be thought that the Eng
lish Bible was the first translation
ever published. The Catholic version
of the Bible, called the Douay version,
was published in 1910, the year be-
fore the English Bible appeared. The
New Testament of the Catholic Bible
had appeared in the English language
prior to tllat,3in 1882. The Old Tesla
ltlant of the King James Bible con-
tains only thirty-nine books, while the
Catholic version contains forty-six
books. Both TRANSACTIONS of the New
Testament contain the same number
OF books (twenty-
There are those who will say that if
it were not. for, the influence of the
81. called Reformation we would
never have had an English transla-
ton OF the Bible. Their contention
is that the Catholic Church preferred
to keep the sacred writings hidden
away in the Latin language and to
even chain the copies in the churches.
1t is true that the Bible was written
in Latin and that in places the copies
were fastened in the buildings to
which the public had access. But to
say that much and no more is to take
the facts out Of their setting. We do
not fasten books in libraries now but
we use a method which gives the re-
suits then sought namely, permits the
public to use the books and insures
their return.
1t must also be remembered that the
are of printing is of comparatively re-
cent development and that prior to
that time it was tedious task to
produce even a single copy Of the
Bible. What wonder then if care was
used to see that it would not be
stolen? The first copy Of the Latin
Bible was printed about 1850. 1t was
not until some time after that that
the art became SO perfected as to be
useful. 1t must also be remembered
that Latin was the language Of Gull
ture until centuries comparatively
late. Even in Bacon's time it was
thought to be the best medium by
which a writer could perpetuate his
thoughts.
The English Bible may be liter
airy masterpiece, but that fact alone
does not make it a reliable guide for
faith. A true translation in the most
ordinary language Is to be preferred.