THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, APRIL 9. 1881. THE NEW VERSION OF THE BIBLE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2221, 9 April 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, APRIL 9. 1881. THE NEW VERSION OF THE BIBLE.

The New Version of the Holy Scriptures is, naturally, looted forward to with great interest. The New Testament has now heen completed, and copies are on their way out from England. It will, presumably, he some time before the Revisers complete the Old Testament. The present version is, as is well-known, called the “authorized” version. It was the work of forty-seven scholars, who took from 1607 to 1610 to complete it. Its superiority at once made itself manifest, and in forty years it had driven all competitors out of the held. The exclusive right to print it was claimed by the Crown, and licenses were given to various patentees in England, Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland the last patent expired in 1839, and was not renewed in consequence of the remonstrances from that country. In England we believe that Messrs Eyre and Spottiswoodo still practically hold the patent granted by George IV. to the firm, and sell the sheets by the ton to the book trade, who make up the copies in various bindings. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have, however, enjoyed the privilege of printing Bibles, etc., in common with the patentees, but, in their case, it is simply a matter of permission, and they have no power to prohibit or prosecute. Notwithstanding the above arrangements, however, no objection has been made to printing versions of the Bible, with notes and. comments, and many such editions are in consequence continually being issued. In fact existing arrangements do not in any way hamper the sale of the Word of God, as may ho instanced by the extremely iow price at which Bibles may be purchased. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have, however, made a new departure, and appear determined to limit, as far as in them lies, a too profuse inquiry into the Written Will of onr Maker. Upon the revisers of the Now Version (which is claimed as the copyright of the above

Universities) completing their work, and ponding its publication, a few extracts of the new text appeared in the “ Record,” extracts which wore . quickly copied into other newspapers and contrasted and compared, not only with the- “ authorised,’’ but with other editions. Thereupon the solicitors to the Universities, Messrs Freshfield and Williams, proclaimed the quoting of these passages illegal, and demanded apologies for the wrong done. Now we do not wish to look upon this as a purely commercial transaction; but, even on that ground, it might well bo shown that the solicitors acted foolishly. The wider the publicity given to any work the better, and certainly one would imagine that no great wrong was done in the present instance, even although the work had not been absolutely published when the extracts appeared. But looking at the affair in a broader I spirit, if Messrs Freshfield and Williams have acted with the full concurrence of the Universities, all we can say is that those ancient centres of learning are acting in a manner most strange and narrow minded. The New "Version has been eagerly looked forward to, and it has never been imagined for an instant that any restrictions would be placed on the dissemination of the work of the revisers. In such a case as the revision of any section of the classics it would not be be expected perhaps, that the Universities would allow individuals or firms to profit by their labours, but the Word of God stands on a basis entirely its own, and it might well bo imagined that the Universities, with their enormaus wealth, would be the last bodies not to encourage the widest possible circulation of the revised text. They might indeed think it their duty to see that their text was not garbled, but the idea of hauling newspapers over the coals for making quotations is absurd in the extreme. It is stated that some firms, after publication, are deter, mined to reprint, with a view of testing the alleged claim of ownership. Would any jury, we wonder, find a verdict in favour of the Universities ? A. copyright of the Holy Scriptures would be a strange thing, indeed. In Dumas’ sensational novel “ The Three Musqueteers,” there is a description of Porthos, one of the three heroes of the book, coming into a small property and being extremely elated with the circumstance. He invites his friends and dilates on the beauty of the place. It is “my house,” “my woods,” “my lake,” and finally it is “my air.” The claim of Porthos to the proprietorship of the air on his estate was not more absurd than the claim of the Universities to a monopoly of any version of the Holy Scriptures. The present “ authorised ” version is a relic of bygone days, but the practical inconvenience of the arrangements has long ago been got over. Thera may now be said to be no hindrances in the way of publishing the Bible. But thojUniversi ties, which, be it remembered, have all along been publishing the authorised version by permission, have determined to alter all this, and have sent a lawyer’s letter to a newspaper quoting their text. They have not only not recognised the fact that they have been exercising a privilege on sufferance, but they have determined to turn round sharply on the public and declare that | this new version has not been undertaken from a love of mankind at large and a desire that the purest possible farm of the Word of God should be the property of I the public, but from a simple commercial desire to make as much out of the affair as possible. We trust, however, that the transaction is not as petty ■ as it at first sight appears. Wherever 1 the English tongue is spoken the great Universities are looked up to and revered, and till further evidence is adduced we shall prefer to think that Messrs. Freshfield and Williams have, in some way, mistaken their instructions.