Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[blocks in formation]

IT has long been felt by scholars, and even by ordinary readers, that a revision of the Bible was desirable. Many plain errors ought to be corrected, some acknowledged interpolations to be no longer retained, while not a few obscure passages would be made clear by an amended translation.

Since but a small proportion of those who look to the Scriptures as the guide of life can read them in the tongues in which they were originally written, it is important that the translation to which they are confined should reproduce the original as nearly as the differences of language will allow. Our version of the Scriptures has always been characterized by this fidelity, but to maintain that it is so far perfect as to be susceptible of no improvement is to be willfully blind to the progress of scholarship for two centuries and a half, and to ignore the fruits of laborious and critical research.

[ocr errors]

says,

Mr. George P. Marsh, in an article in "The Nation,' "In purity and beauty of style it is the first of English classics, and its diction and special grammatical structure are appropriate to the matter in a degree of which modern literature offers no other example. The revision of such a translation can have but two legitimate aims — first, the correction of errors arising from the adoption of a corrupt original text by the translators, or from a mistaken interpretation of the text; and, secondly, the substitution of more appropriate words or forms of expression for terms and phrases which are now wholly obsolete and unintelligible to the ordinary reader, or which, through changes in the language and in the tone of social culture, have become inexplicable, or suggestive of low or revolting images or associations, offensive to the sound taste and the moral sense of the present age.

The question of revision, which has been for many years discussed, is no longer an open one, for, on the 10th of February, 1870, both houses of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution, offered by the Bishop of Winchester, "to report upon the desirableness of a revision of the authorized version of the Old and New Testaments, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist."

This resolution was seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (Ellicott), who has taken considerable interest in the subject, and has recently issued a little work† on the revision of the New Testament. The prominent position which he occupies upon the committee appointed under this resolution renders it highly probable that his views of the manner in which the work should be done will largely

*The Proposed Review of the English Bible. Three articles by G. P. M. (Hon. George P. Marsh), in The New-York Nation for Oct. 13, 20, and 27, 1870.

† Considerations on the Revision of the English Version of the New Testament. By C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. 1870.

guide those to whom it is committed; and so his opinions. become quite important, and have a general interest. We shall find his suggestions wise, though cautious, and that he has a spirit of reverent conservatism, and perhaps of timidity, joined to the student's desire for correctness.

He gives a very interesting history of our Bible, in which he shows how greatly it is indebted for its vigor of language, felicity of expression, and fidelity of rendering, to the labors of Tyndale. But since our Bible received its present form, the indefatigable labors of students have largely increased our knowledge of its originals. Old manuscripts have been discovered, and a careful comparison of them has given us "a very accurate knowledge of what were probably the very words which were either traced by the hands of the Apostles and Evangelists or dictated by them to the faithful writer" (p. 37). The "mother text" of our version (the fourth edition of Erasmus's Testament) "was based on scanty evidence and late manuscripts," our facilities for improving it are very great, and we ought carefully to use every help which the present state of criticism offers towards the right understanding of the original. "If there are errors they ought to be removed for the truth's sake. If there are inaccuracies which give false tinges to deduced doctrines, surely we seem called upon to revise them now, whatever may be done in the future, in accordance with the known and, for the most part, fixed principles of grammar and scholarship."

Mr. T. K. Abbott, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Dublin, has issued a strong plea for the revission of the English Bible,* in which he says that the present version is only one of a number of revisions, for in no other country has there ever been so many revisions. That many trust the Bible as infallible is a reason for making it correct. "In this country" (England, and how much more strongly is

The English Bible and our duty with regard to it. A Plea for Revission. By Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, M.A., Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Dublin. Dublin. 1871.

it the case in America), he says, "it has established an absolutely exclusive authority, being regarded almost as an original. . . . It has become the sole ultimate appeal of millions both of our own and other branches of the human family, and the numbers of those who thus look up to it are multiplying daily. Is this a reason for acquiescing in its imperfections? Does it not, on the contrary, make it more and more imperative to remove every spot, in order that our version may reflect its original as clearly, as faithfully and as thoroughly as human skill with the divine help can effect? Yes, and that it be done speedily, for every delay, as it makes the necessity more pressing, renders the obstacles more formidable."

Some may be offended, in the English sense of the word, he thinks, by a revision, but an adherence to erroneous readings offends in the Biblical sense; and he adds that a careful revision of the prophetic books of the Old Testament would throw light on places now dark, and in not a few instances give beauty and poetry instead of confusion; and, finally, a revision which should, as far as can be, put the English reader in posession of the very words of the inspired writers without impairing the beauty of the English Bible, would be a glorious work.

"If we knowingly teach," he says, "what we have good reason to believe false, we cannot plead devout ignorance in our defense."

It is not a new translation that is proposed at the present time, but simply a revision of the old, and even that is not now to be attempted for the first time; but hitherto we have been indebted for all endeavors to improve the received version to individual scholars, whose labors have necessarily borne marks of the peculiar bias which led them to their task, as well as of their special views and judgments; while now the work is to be done upon a broader basis; and in the communion of many minds, and the comparison of different views, it is hoped that results will be reached worthy of general acceptance. A revision must be the work of many persons,

frequently consulting together, and comparing conclusions around a common table.

The Bishop discusses at some length the critical state of the New Testament; the general character of the authorized version, and the principles on which it was constructed; the limits to which revision should be confined; the number of corrections that would be introduced; and the objections to revision, whether at any time, or only at the present. In some respects, we think, while agreeing with him in the main, his suggestions are not entirely judicious, while in others he is inconsistent with himself. The scholar seeking truth is at times restrained by the conservatism of the prelate wedded to an established system, and bound by traditional theories of inspiration.

He well says, that, in order to have any revision generally acceptable, the vocabulary of translation must be limited to that of the authorized version; the principles of the revision of 1611 must be adhered to; the frequently modifying power of the context must be recognized; the translation of particles and tenses attended to; and the fact kept in mind that the tenses in Greek and English, particularly the past tenses, are not co-extensive; there must be a sensitiveness to the rhythm and cadence of the authorized version; and, finally, a remembrance that a translation must commend itself to the simple hearer as well as the cultivated scholar.

Prof. Lightfoot* thinks that the reviser's hand could be employed to advantage on the English of our version. He thinks there is no disposition to alter its character, "but while its stately rhythm and archaic coloring are sacred to English-speaking people the version addresses itself to plain folk. So long, then, as an archaism is intelligible, let it stay; if it is misleading, or ambiguous, or inarticulate, the time for removing it has come."

* On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. London. 1871.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »