The Irish standard., 1915-01-23

living teacher for its exponent; to the
Professionals, on the other hand, the
Bible is as clear and as plain as a
childs primer, book to be had by all,
to be read by all, to be understood by
all.
The autographs Of the inspired writ
ings. it must be remembered, are no
longer in existence. The translator
then must rely on copies. But these
copies themselves were not made from
the original. Some were written hun
dreds and thousands of years after the
autograph. To give but one instance,
the earliest copy which we possess of
the New Testament dates from the
fourth century; that is, it was made
some two hundred and fifty years after
the Evangelists wrote their Gospels.
1t would be unreasonable, to say the
least, to expect that God would pre-.
serve this long line of copyists and
copies from all error. God never
meant the Bible to be our only rule
Of faith. Hence He could allow mis-.
takes to creep in, at least In those
matters which do not pertain to faith
and morals. As fact, If we compare
copy with copy, host of divergences
become at once manifest. The ques.
tion, then, to be decided by the would.
be translator is: which Is the best and
purest text; which has the fewest
flaws; which approaches the original
most closely?
Now it is true that in this respect
the King James translators seem at
first blush to have made the better
choice. For they based their version
on the original Greek and Hebrew
text, while the Douay scholars were
satisfied with translating from the Vul.
gate, itself translation. But this
fact does not prove the superiority Of
the King James Version. Not only is
the text on which 1t is based, the So
called received text" considered even
by Protestant scholars as of compare
lively little value, but the more the
Vulgate is examined as to the purity
of its text, the higher it rises in the
esteem of sound critics. Besides, while
strictly adhering to the Latin Vulgate,
the Douay translators always had the
Original Hebrew and Greek within
easy reach to verify doubtful readings
and to clear up ambiguous renderings.
Both Bibles being versions, 1t is a
foregone conclusion that they differ
with regard to the faithfulness with
which they chung to the original. Now
nobody ever denied that the Douay
Version was most faithful rendering
of the Vulgate. Indeed, this is the one
objection constantly urged against it
by Protestants. Whether this be a
fault or virtue matters not for the
present. But how does the King
James Version stand in this respect?
It is true that the Douay Version was
published for the precise purpose Of
counteracting the manifold corrup.
lions of Holy Scripture and the
"foule dealing herein by false and par
tial translations." But this charge was
leveled against the earlier Protestant
Bibles. The King James Version, in
Difference to the vigorous protests of
Catholics, largely remedied this evil.
However, there still remain some false
translations, evidently introduced with
the view of making the Bible seem to
stand sponsor for Protestant beliefs
and customs.
Finally, how do you two versions
compare with regard to their style?
With few exceptions, the Protestants
condemn the Douay Version as stilted,