The Irish standard., 1916-04-22
the Bible to be our only rule Of faith

the Bible to be our only rule Of faith.
Hence He would allow mistakes 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 be-
come at once manifest. The question,
then, to be determined 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 it is based, the so-called
received text" considered even by
Protestant scholars as of comparative.
ly little value, but the more the Vul-
gate is examined as to the purity of
its text. the higher it rises in the es-
TEEN 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, it 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
1t 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?
1t is true that the Douay version was
published for the precise purpose of
counteracting the manifold corrup.
ton of Holy Scripture" and the "foul
dealing herein by false and partial
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 the two versions
compare with regard to their style?
With few exceptions, the Protestants
condemn the Douay version as stilted,
un-English, ambiguous in it's terms,
full of strange ink horn words which
never were and never would be Eng
fish. Even among Catholics an occa-
sional tendency manifests itself to re-
peat these charges. Yet, while there
may be some reason for them, let us
not overlook two facts. The first is
that the Douay translators were by no
means unschooled dilettanti, but men
who had received the best training of
their day and had been conspicuous
at Oxford itself both for their ripe
scholarship and their literary accom-
plishments. If fault is to be found with
their style, this must not be set down
to incapacity, but rather to definite
principles purposely chosen and religi-
ously carried out. AS they themselves
state in the preface, they preferred
truth and accuracy to grace and ele-
gance of style. Furthermore, they ex-
pected that words and phrases which
might at first sound strange, would in
the course of time become familiar
and pleasing. 1t is noteworthy that
some of the terms which they foresaw
"ouAu w uAoId0tC1u1 LUZ d were
afterwards adopted by the King James
Bible and became naturalized in the
English language.
"The substance and the 'woof and
warp Of our Douay version" says Ed.
win H. Burton in his Life and Times
of Bishop Challoner," lis vigorous and
noble English. When the superiority
of the Anglican version is urged, as is
frequently the case, we must not for
get how much, in the New Testament
at least, the authorized version owes
to Reims. In quite recent years this
influence has not only been admitted
by Anglican writer's, but exhaustively
studied and estimated" Rev. A. C,
Cotter, 81.
THE IRISH PRIEST IN FICTION.