Tne Revised Bible

Auckland Star, Volume XI, Issue 3219, 13 November 1880, Page 3

Tne Revised Bible

A writer in an English paper, evidently a person possessed of considerable Biblica knowledge, has furnished tho following review of tho new English translation o£ the New Testament :—

" The Queen's printer, who alone by ancient statute law is permitted to publish Bibles within the realm, Ims put his signature upon the last sheet pr:ol of the new revision of the New Testament, and within a week tho first shipment ot the bound volumes will bo made to America, Canada, Australia, and wherever the English tongue is spoken by Protestants. For many reasons that will readily occur ami need not be enumerated, the new revision is an epoch in Protestantism and a red letter day iv all Christian churches the world over. Its advent, looked forward to for over a decade, and the hope of thousands of Christian minds, will be a subject of absorbing interest.

The revision is catholic in ltd uature; cathedral iD its form. It is the joint work of the new and old worlds; of all branches of the Protestant Church ; of learning and piety joined hand in hand ; priest and lay> man, prelate and scholar workiDg together. Its origin ■was in that " cradle of (AngloSaxon Christendom, the Convocation of Canterbury, presided over by tbe primato of England." The necessity for a revision of tho present text has become imperative— how imperative clergymen and scholars alone know—and for many years previovsly there had been careful inquiry and discussion among the bishops, clergy, and theological professors, as well as laymen, in regard to the best means by which it ought to be brought about. The plan that has been slowly maturing under the advice of the most eminent minds iv this country and America was presented to tho convocation May C, 1870, by the committee having it in charge. Tho plan was so well digested, so broad in its catholicity, yet so conservative iv its aims, that it met with prompt approval, and the work now completing was beguu without delay. The scheme could never have had any hopes of success had. it been confined to the Bstablished Church, and it thereforo contemplated a union of learning and special fltnes* for the labour that would embrace the whole world; that would unite all English-speaking races and all denominations; that would produce a text to be accepted in all lands and among all peoples as an " authorised version " and a correct rendering of tho original text so far as tho original text could be agreed upon by scholars.

The English committee appointed by the convocation comprised the venerable Archbishop French of Dublin; the bishops of Lincoln, Winchester, St. David's, Durham ; Salisbury. Bath and Wells, Llandatl, Gloucester, and Bristol, and St. Audrews ; tho deans of Westmiuster, Ely, Litchfield, Rochester, Lincoln, Canterbury, and Peterborough ; the archdeacons of Dublin. Canterbnry, Bedford, and Maidstone ; the professors of Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and special theological branches in the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, London, Glaseow, and of the Wesleyan college at Dedsbury j the Baptist colleges at London and Bristol, the Congregational college at Glasgow, and the Free Kirk (Presbyterian) colleges at Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh. To these wore added eminent laymen adapted to the work.

Tho American committeo was organised in 1871, chiefly from professors in the leading theological seminaries of tho different denominations; the divinity schools ot Harvard, Yale, Princeton, New Brunswick, Andover, Rochester, New York, Philadelphia, Trenton, Hartford, Alexandria, and other cities furnishing their ablest scholnrs. Bishop Lee wai the only cis-Atlantic Episcopalian, but such names as Woolscy, Dwight, Schaff, Conant, Dewitt, Strong, Van Dyke, Green, Day, Acken, Osgood, Thayer, and Abbott—names familiar and revered not alone here, but in critical Holland and erudite Germany—were bailed as an earnest of tho hearty acceptance of the scheme by all American denominations, and also their intention to fully deserve half the credit of the work, if not more. In addition to these commitjees, lischendorf, Kennen, Ewald, and nearly a hundred other eminent Bible scholars of the Continent (including several Catholic prelates), placed their special knowledge, their time, and their manuscript treasures at tho disposal of the committee, and, as corresponding members, have rendered assistance of the very highest value.

110W THB REVISION WAS MADE,

The principles of tho revision were markedly conservative. "Asfew alterations in the present text as faithfulness to the original would permit" was the first and great commandment; but it was understood that "faithfulness to the original" required a great many changes. No change was retained without a two-thirds vote in each committee. The " original text" was selectod in the same manner from the oldest and best uncial manuscript, In America and here, following in part tho plan of the King James translators, the committee divided the Hebraists taking the Old Testament, the Hellenists the New Testament. These did not subdivide the work, however, and each member of the New Testament Committee became responsible for |the correctness of the entire work. ' , The method of labour was this: Both committees took up, let us say, the first synoptic. The Americans revised it. Tho English revised it The worlc was then exchanged, and each committee compared the revision with its own. Where they agreed the work was accepted. Whore they disagreed the work was again gone over, explained, and exchanged, this being continned until agreement was had. There was very little disagreement, however, and the precaution provided for-of final disagreement was not necessary. The procress ot !the work has been kept secret by special arrangement. Alarming reports of sweeping changes have from time to time appeared, frightening the timid and the letter-inspirationists; but nothing was given out by authority until now, when the whole work, approved unanimously by the committee, is presented to Christendom for a verdict. In considering the changes that have been made it may be proper to insist upon the fact being kept in view that no more cautious and conservative body of Christian scholars enjoying so wide a repntation and snch high respect throughout the world, could possibly be gathered together; that no change has been made in the present English version except by a two-thirds vote in both bodies ; that the doubt has always been exercised in behalf of the present version, the necessity for each change having to be proven clearly and unmistakcably, and that the only danger has been from the first that the revisers would exercise undue caution and refuse to accept corrections that should be made in the interests of truth because the evidence against them lacked some technicality, producing a work that the non-Christian would not, aud ought not to be aeked to occept as a correct version of the original.

WHY THB BEVISION WAS NEEDED,

Great as has been the bulk of information disseminated concerning the Scriptures, some facts of the first importance are little known. One of them is, that there never has been a standard text. The editions printed by the Queen's printer for the Bible Society have widely varied, and since King James's day there have been many unauthorized and no authorized version strictly so called. The American Bible Society is even in worse plight, and has of late yeare been adhering to a text of its own after putting several in the market, while the other societies do not even adhere to one text.

The King James translators were strictly charged to follow tbe text of the Bishop's Bible, a revision of tho Oranmcr Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, itself the Matthew-Tyndalo Bible, wjthout the rotea, which had its origin in an English translation from the German. The previous revisors were individuals dissatisfied with the version, and their work wa without ecclesiastical authority. The present text of the English version is over three centuries old, and during that time the language has not alone taken on many new words, but it has also dropped maDy then in use, and found new meanings for old words which have lost their original significance- Let me instance a few obsolete words : " Doves tabering on their breasts," instead of drumming ; " The lion filled his den with ravin," instead of plunder; " Neither is there any daysman, instead of umpire. " Ouches," for a sckets ; "clouts," for patches; " earing," for ploughing: "bruit," for report; "boiled, for swallow, are other examples. The changes ia signification, however, are much more important, and lead to error, contradiction, dispute. When we read that the daughter of Herodias said, "Give me, by and by, in a changer, the head of John the Baptist, it is natural to think that she was in no great hurry. But three hundred years ago "by and by" meant instantly, immediately, forthwith, and a "charger" was not a "war horae," but what our housewives call a dish aud yours a platter. " Give me instantly in a dish the head of John the Baptist" is quite different from the real form. The " artillery " so often| spoken of in the Bible is not onr artillery, but literally bows and arrows, "Go to" then meant come: "let," to hinder; "careless,' free Icom care: ."prevent," to anticipate;

" admiration," wonder ; " botch," an ulcer ; "camphire," a cypress; "pommel," a globe, &c MISTAKES OF EARLY TRANSLATIONS. The corrections necessary to bring the English text into accord with the language of to-day, many as they are, are insiguiucant, however, when compared with the errors of early translations. Three hundred years ago the grammatical niceties of the Greek language were unknown and Hebrew studies were iv their intancy. Buxtorf published his little Hebrew grammar while the translators were at work, and his larger one after they had Quished. In many cases, to weak were they in Hebrew, they were compelled to leave Hebrew words untranslated, not knowing or being able to " guessj" their meaning. A familiar iustance is the word Belial, which is supposed to be a proper name, but it simply means unworthy, and the phrase " sons of Belial " should properly read " unworthy men ;" " Jusher " is not a proper name, but an adjective, meaning upright, and the "Book of Jashcr" was the " Book of the Upright." Tho "Gammadima" (Ezek. xxvii.. 11) warriors; " Pannug " (v. 17) means v cundy ; "Sheth" means a tumult; "Bajith" an idol temple. Their wild "guesses" often show absurd blunders. The " mules " mentioned in Genesis as having been found were warm springs; "pledges" they turned into thick clay; "ilect" into both piercing and crooked; "curls" into galleries ; " leaders" intoavengine; "o3triches" iuto owls ; " goats " into satyrs ; "droves" into lineu yarn; ''set up" they render as cast down; and Joseph's "tunic with long sleeves" they transmogrify into " a coat of many colours." lustauces might be multiplied until patience was exhausted of their iuaccuracy. In the New Testament they were better qualified for the work, nnd their* eitors were not so gross, though equally numerous. The grammatical forms upou which so much depends, especially with catholic epistles, where there is close logic, and the place of a word iv a sentence may qualify its meaning, are never considered, and they stumble through their work in a " rough and tumblo " way, more like a schoolboy than a scholar. Still more importaut than cither tho chauges of the language or tho blunders of translators have been the corrections that have been made iv tho original text, by the comparison of manuscripts generally, and by the discovery of two very ancient manuscripts of tho Bible iv particular. A single illustration of this will sutlicc : Mark says that on the cross the Christ was given '■wine" mingled with myrrh; Matthew says "vinegar." Tho "harmony" that gives Him two drinks is bosh for children ; scholars know there is a contradiction. The natural inference is that the writers did not disagree, and that the error arose in copying. By comparing manuscripts tho inference is found to be correct, the older codices agreeing upon wine. The two words in tho Greek are very much alike, of the tame length, and differing only in the middle letter. The most violent of atheistical shoemakers, when shown the manuscript?, would not hesitate in his acknowledgment that there was no contradiction, arjd that the causa of the error was to bo found in the carelessness of some copyist of tho Greek text of Matthew.

(To bo continued )