REVISERS' ENGLISH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22166, 20 July 1935, Page 1 (Supplement)

REVISERS' ENGLISH

NOTABLE IMPROVEMENTS

BY 31 AT AN OA

Many requests for precise instances of better Euglish in tho Revised Version of the Bible give reason for further reference, in this jubilee year, to the merits of this translation. That it has greater textual accuracy than tho so-called Authorised Version is incontestable; on that scoro no informed, prevailing word has ever been said against it, nor can be, and tho truth of this is so impressive to honest minds that tho desire to know the "originals" must in them override any pleasure derived from a pretty rendering into English. Tho King James Bible, to givo the "Authorised " its less deceptive, name, is far from being the uniformly beautiful translation so often idly thought, and the Revised has much literary charm with which it lifts been insufficiently credited by its prejudiced detractors, but of first importance is fidelity of translation. This the revisers of 1611 did not observe. Indeed, in their famous preface they proudly avow their departure from it. They ransacked the dictionary for synonyms —which are very rarely of identical meaning—in order to avoid tautology, and in so doing dug pits for their neighbours—with tho usual unfortunate result. Confusion results, and the unlettered are led astray.

Writing of their New Testament, Dean Vaughan says — " When we note the utter indifference of the Authorised Version to many clearly-marked and universally recognised peculiarities of the original, and the absolute licence with which it runs riot in its translation of one and the same Greek woid into various English equivalents amounting, in one notorious instance, to the rendering of a single Greek verb into seventeen English forms in the seven and twenty instances of its occurrence —we must in common justice modify our idolatry while we do not stint our commendation, and not suffer ourselves to forget that there was a reason for attempting revision, however little successful we may pronounce the result." . „ Removing Pitfalls

Another of the New Testament company of the 1881-5 revisers, Bishop Westcott, has put it 911 record that " endeavour alter faithfulness as as indeed the ruling principle of the who e work: from first to last, the single object of the revisers was to allow the written words to speak foi themselves to Englishmen, without any admixture of gloss, or any suppression of roughness." Whatever of roughness be found belongs to the original text, not to their rendering of it. What r.ghthad the revisers of 1611 to hide that anc in their misguided zeal for embellishment to deceive those able onlj to read English? For the pitfalls they culpably prepared they cannot be forgiven, but of others into which the modern Englishman stumbles as he reads with unenlightened eyes it must be said that changes in language since their daj have demanded alteration, lo both roads of 'error the Revised Version closes the gate. Is its solemn rest not a more admonitory as well as a more truthful rendering than their predecessors' "rest" in the ancient Hebrew Sabbath law? Why should we, habitually using "heart" for the seat of the emotion. 1 !, have to march with the revisers of 1611 in saying "bowels or "reins" ? They used "his" as the pos'jcssivfi of not tlicir succgssors justified in preferring "its," the modern form? "Astomed" the readers of Stuart days found familiar where they met it, whereas we always say "astonished"; and the Revised Version, in dealing with many such archaisms, has given us an English belonging to our life, making it more real and not a whit less beautiful. Some Corrections "Thought" to them, as in "Take therefore no thought for the morrow, meant anxiety, not mental process; is it not a, gain that the Revised Version has "Be not anxious," with correlative changes? St. Paul's "Be careful for nothing" seems to us strangely foolish counsel; the modern rendering quite rightly gives "In nothing be anxious. That "the love of money is die root of all evil" is palpably fallacious; the Apostle rightly wrote 'the love of monev is a root of all k ,n ds f v \ and thus it is now rightly translated. Is not "Fret not thyself, it tendeth onlv to evildoing" (Psalm 37, 8) far better than "Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil" as a counsel for conduct? Of related interest is the alteration of "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" to "Make to yourselves friends bv means of the mammon of unrighteousness"—an urging to charitable benevolence instead of a worldly-wise accumulation of riches. Many of the myriad changes may seem small, but what shall be said for one necessitated, perhaps, by the hesitation of the King James revisers to smother their reluctance to think kindly of women in the Church. At all events, thev rendered Psalm 68, 11 "The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it " and their critics of our time had to' restore the truth—"The Lord giveth the word: the women that publish Hie tidings arc a great host."

Remarkable Renderings A story of Archbishop point to another remarkable amendment. In his last illness he asked a friend to read St. Paul's description of tho Christian's hope, as he looks "for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change"—so the friend read from the Authorised Version—' our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body. Ihe archbishop interrupted: "No no; give his own words. He never called God s work vile " And now, when Phihppians 4, 21 is read as it should be, from the Revised Version, tho majestic rhythmic, noetic words march out*— Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the bodv of his glory." Writing of apparently small but tremendous alterations Bishop Westcott emphasises the vitality of certain prepositions, asking in reference to classic passages "Am I then wrong m saying that he who has mastered the meaning of those two prepositions now truly rendered —'into tho Name, in Christ -has found the central truth of Christianity? Certainly I would gladly have given the ten years of my hie spent on the Revision to bring only these two phrases ot tlio New I est anient to the heart of Englishmen." Mere I v to touch the fringe of this subject 'of the Revisers' English is to discover abundant reason why, whatever the number of copies sold, their version lias established itself. Sermon texts and whole discourses, commentaries, treatises, published aitides, books of devotion, all give proof that its claim to grateful, reverent welcome has been heeded and honoured.