Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    Principles Governing the Translators

    The determining principles governing the work of the King James and the Revision committees are definitely discerned and stated, by the author, but not observed by him in his criticisms. On page 175 the contention is made that “even the jots and tittles of the Bible are important,” yet the very principle of “exact and literal translation” (p. 170), was admittedly the basis of R.V. translations, whereas, he declares that the principle followed, by the 1611 body was that the Greek text should be “translated freely” (p. 109). In full, the passage reads: “The Reformers said that the Greek of the New Testament was cast in Hebrew forms of thought, and translated freely; the Revisers literally. The Revisers followed Winer. We see the results of their decision in the Revised New Testament” (p. 109). Just what these results are, as between the literal and the free, will be seen in detail in Section III.RABV 7.1

    The implication is made that every change by the Revisers is a corruption per se, and the author dwells upon the number of “changes” —nearly 36,000 in all (p. 175). But when the truth is known, the vast majority of these are seen to be simply minor, technical, verbal improvements for greater accuracy, such as in spelling, punctuation, order of words in the sentence, uniformity in translating the same Hebrew and Greek words, modern use of the personal pronouns “who” and “that” in place of “which,” the insertion and omission of the definite article with proper names, and recognition of the different meanings of the same English word as between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. These account for the overwhelming majority of the “changes.”RABV 7.2

    Two extracts are here submitted which are typical of the attitude of hosts of outstanding conservative Fundamentalist scholars upon this point, and additional evidence is given in Section II, p. 4. We quote first from the scholarly Dr. James Orr:RABV 8.1

    “As respects results, it may be said generally that the labors of a long line of scholars have given us a NT text on which, in nearly all essential respects, we can safely rely. Others, it is to be owned, take a less sanguine view (of Nestle, op. cit., 227 ff). The correct reading seems undeniably settled in a large majority of cases. The RV embodies most of the assured results; doubtful cases are noted in the margin.”—“The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia,” Vol. 2, p. 751.RABV 8.2

    And again, a bit more fully from Dr. James M. Gray, on the English and American revisions:RABV 8.3

    “Those English, divines Westcott and Hort are considered by many scholars as the highest and latest authority on the Greek text. Also they belong to a school which has always made the most of any has tile argument which various readings were supposed to afford. Nevertheless, they assure us that the proportion of words in our present Greek text which are raised above doubt is about seven-eighths of the whole, and that the remaining one-eighth consists merely of changes in the order of words and. other ‘trivialities,’ as they express it. To quote their exact language, ‘the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.’ That is, as Dr. John Urquhart says, ‘the comparison of the manuscripts assures us that every 999 words are absolutely the words placed on record by the sacred penman, and that there is doubt only upon one word in every thousand.”—Moody Bible Institute Monthly, February, 1930.RABV 8.4

    The fact that the overwhelming proportion of the two texts is identical, destroys the ponderously constructed argument about unbridgeable divergence. These “changes” are but minor deviations of one identical Bible.RABV 9.1

    “Two Parallel Streams of Bibles” (p. 43), arbitrarily created by the author, are formed for a purpose, and do not rest upon historical authority. The Revisers did not confine themselves to one manuscript group, but consulted Western, Antiochian, Neutral, and Alexandrian manuscripts.RABV 9.2

    The author condemns both Testaments of the American Revised Version, but virtually confines his criticisms to the New Testament. Yet the changes for greater accuracy in the Old Testament are even, in some respects, more marked than the changes in the New Testament. This is acknowledged by one historian of the Revision, before noted, who declares, “The attention of scholars and of the general public naturally shifted to the earlier and larger portion, of the Sacred Volume [the Old Testament], the merits of whose Revised Version soon won universal admiration.”—“A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament,” by Samuel Hemphill, D. D., Litt. D., p. 125.RABV 9.3

    And now observe the words of the learned Dr. Kenyon, Librarian of the British Museum, relative to the reasons for some of the verbal changes:RABV 9.4

    “What, then, were the causes which led to the revision of this beloved version [the Authorized] within the present generation, after it had held its ground for nearly three hundred years? They may be summed up in a single sentence: The increase of our knowledge concerning the original Hebrew and Greek texts, especially the latter.... The translators [of 1611] used, the best materials that they had to their hands, and with good results, since their texts were substantially true, though not in detail; but since their time the materials have increased enormously. New manuscripts have come to light, and all the earliest copies have been minutely examined and discussed. Many scholars have devoted years of their lives to the collection of evidence bearing on the text of the New Testament; and the general result of these generations of study is to show that the text used by the translators of 1611 is far from perfect.”—“Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” F. G. Kenyon, pp. 236, 237.RABV 9.5

    “The first class of changes introduced in the Revised Version consists of those which are due to a difference in the text translated; and these are most conspicuous and most important in the New Testament. The version of 1611 was made from a Greek text formed by a comparison of very few manuscripts, and those, for the most part, late. The version of 1881, on the other hand, was made from a Greek text based upon an exhaustive examination, extending over some two centuries, of all the best manuscripts in existence. In Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener the New Testament company possessed the two most learned textual critics then alive; and when it is remembered that no change was finally accepted unless it had the support of two-thirds of those present, it will be seen that the Greek text underlying the Revised Version has very strong claims on our acceptance.”— Ibid., pp. 238, 239.RABV 10.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents