Evening star., 1961-03-19

Church. However, for private
reading and devotions, I most
heartily recommend the use
of modern day tranSlationS.
The Bible was not written
and handed down to us for
for the sake Of poetic beauty,
but to inspire each person
who reads the words con-
tanned therein to live a
better life, as he Is led by the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, any translation
that seeks to refer to the orig
inal texts, and make the
scripture more underestimate
BILE, is, in my opinion, a note
worthy step of progress. To
this end, I must say that
I consider your comments Of
fensiVe, and suggest that you
have missed the very point Of
the Bible itself. The Bible
must be more than a compil-
alton Of writings for the sake
Of poetic beauty"-it must
be q guide for living, and
any modern translation helps
at this point.
Charles d. Davis
Associate Minister. Wood
side Methodist Church
The Stars book critic and
the editorial writer alike
make an understandable plea
for preserving what is good
out Of our Biblical heritage.
They fear that the recent
English "Tinkering with the
Bible" might mean the pass
ing Of the King James YER
sion. But both alike overlook
the principal justification of
a new translation. They ig-
more what has happened
in the field of manuscript
discovery and in the science
Of textual criticism. Things
have changed since 1911
when the King James trans
lation appeared. The Greek
text Of the New Testament,
which must be the basis of
English translation, has un-
dergone revision because of
the testimony of 4th century
uncials and second century
papyri, of which King James
knew nothing. The Nestle
Greek text, with its latest
revision of 1858, is a vast
improvement over the Ste
phanus text used by King
James and in use as late as
100 years ago. 1t is not
merely a question of salt of
the EARTH" mote" beam"
and "tinkling cymbal." And
preserving the beautiful
King James as a heritage for
this generation is somewhat
beside the point. This gener-
alton Is biblically illiterate;
it knows no text Of the New
Testament. The problem is
that of awakening an inter-
est where there is none. It
might be that a rev transla-
ton, Soundly aware of the
achievements Of scholars in
the textual field, would chal-
lenge readers. The run on
book stores reported in Brit
ain and the keen interest in
the translation in America
should be cause for rejoicing,
not lamentation.
Montgomery ]. ShrOyer,
Department Of New Testa-
ment. Wesley Theological
Seminary.
It is seldom that I have
been more greatly cheered by
a book review than by that
by Day Thorpe in his analy-
sis of the new English edi-
ton of the New Testament.
The fact that this version is
authorized by all the leading
churches of Great Britain
gives us a reasonable fear
that it will become the au-
thorized version for America
as well.
In the view Of one whose
reading of the Bible has
extended through a long life
time, there has been q pro-
gressive cheapening Of this
great Book. The Deity is to
be approached with reverence
and with awe and deserves
the most serious treatment
that the English language
can give.
My deep and sincere
thanks go to Mr.. Thorpe.
Ralph E. Flanders.
Congratulations to Day
Thorpe for his salty review
on The New English Bible.
The removal of the glory
from the great passages of
the King .Jannar UaVs;o,1 io