AMERICAN REVISED BIBLE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10482, 29 October 1901, Page 2

AMERICAN REVISED BIBLE.

a.o one now either hopes or fears that a "revised edition" wilt ever take the place among "English-speaking men of the King James version (says the American correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald). Still, for controversial and explanatory purposes, each authoritative revision' is a noteworthy event. The latest appeared recently — the edition of those American revisers, wlio as a body were out-voted by their English co-workers' on the first revision. .Originally, in 1870, a committee composed entirely of English scholars began the task;' «-ut they had progressed only a little way when, for obvious reasons, it was deemed better to invite — c co-operation of American scholars. Under th'g agreement reaeh,ecj, the English revisers nad the decisive vote, but the American suggested that changes, not adopted were to be printed in an appendix; and after fifteen years the American reyisers." were to be a$ liberty to publish their own version. None ftf tne difference 3 between the revisers, except "in perhaps in regard to the use of the "SheoP' (carrying with if,. p,f c.qurs,e, 'opposite, views of the "punishment fqr sin. after death) was,'. very serious,; but it is well known ftiat even slight differ, ences of opinion in masters oithiakind live long in the membries'qf thosg in^ terested. The English revisers" disbanded in 1885, and in England there has never been the faintest indicatioq of an intention to give the American renderings any further "consideration, Tho American revisers, though protesting that more than half-of the emendations adopted by ft majority vote of their committee had nofi been printed in' the appendix, held by the agreement made for the. full term specified, but have now taken mare freedom than they might perhaps otherwise - in making plain fhe points of variance. There are differences qf grammar and cqrreptness. of speech aa 'well £8 of meaning. By a vote of both committees, it was agreed that "its" should be aubstiuted fay "his" or "her" when, the object is impersonal, .hut, the 'published version failed to make* the J change in no less than 200 instances. Five-sixths of the marginal referenpes in the English version to- ancient Greek translations qf tho Old Testament are thrqwn gut, pfl the groun. dthat a translation sheds at bests very dqubtful light upon the original Hebrew text; but weherever retained, the "some" .qr 'fmany'' in the English revision is replaped>qy an ex! act reference. Bus why descend to details? Inspired by q. feeling wljichmay be amour prqpre and may be selfrespect, and may be a combination of both, .-c American revisers Hove spared no pains to make their revision the better. _ Mr who is the most impartial — that is, usuallyTr=aniong American critics closes a first notice by the dictum that the edition < c will commend itself to qualified students of the Hebrew and Gre.ek Sprjptures aa s.u_. peraor tq the British revised version on the score of accuracy and clearness.." But jn another t§n days or so we shall begin to receive tne -answering volleys from across, the Atlantic. And henoeforth there will always, be two distinct revised editions..- Fortunately, tho real able lives by virtue of the inner meaning which it suggests. Coleridge thought tho Psalter of the Prayer Book, an older and presumably. a less oarefnlly translated version, better- than theKing James 'Psalms ; and Jeremy Taylor, nocprding to Emerson i'the Shakespeare of divines,", uses sometimos one and sometimes the other rendering plainly in doubt as to whioh of two good things was the better.