CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 162, 9 July 1881, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

To THK EnilOE OK THB " EVENING MAIL.", Sir— -To quote the worda of your correspondent "A.B.Nelson," " there is a danger of some misconception" arising from the statement in bis letter that the trenchant criticisms on the recent translation of tbe New Testament are from " American sources,"— in fact, if hia Lordship had read the paragraph in question he would hare fonnd that, on. the contrary, the one favorable criticism was from "American sources," namely, from the somewhat notorious Henry Ward Beecher. The only English papers which appear to j 'Welcome it with open srms are the Wa'c^mm I and Record, papers whose imprimatur will not carry much weight. The two principal conditions under wbich ihe Berision Company on ier took their labors are as follows:— (1) To introduce as few alterations as possible iato tbe text of the authorised version consistently with faithfulness. (2) To limit as far as possible the expression of soch alterations to tba language of the authorised and earlier English versions. The English papers — so fsr as we hare yet seen tbem — charge the Bevisers with paying little or no hted to these conditions, notably in the changes in the Lord's Prayer, wbicb, to quota tlie Guardian, "will create a feeling of repugnance which is almost pain." Tht Baity New* says on this subject:— "Passing on a little further we come to the Lord's Prayer, in wbich many persors will see with regret, or even wilb a stronger feeling*, the changes which bave been made. « Biiog ns not into temptation '" takes the place of «Lead ns not/ probably, as before siid, for no x usn bnt to harmonise tbe translation with other places in wbich the same verb is so Tendered— a rery small reason it must be allowed in the face of the rale to make as few changes as possible * * * con . ■latently with faithfulness." The Standard also brings a heavy indictment against the revisers. On thia head it says:— "Alterations of the diction of the Oid Version involving no gain in Sense, or scarcely a perceptible one, swarm in the ReTised E iition, and in almost erery instance it ia impossible not to feel tbat tbe original translators, how ever inferior to the present Beiisers in precise and exhaustive scholarship', textual or general, were infinitely their superiors in the rare and precious art of writing musical aad masculine Euglisb prose. The Bevisers of the Authorised Version will oot content themselves with proving (what has aot been contested) that some errors are to be found in th.t translation approved by the Divines of James the First's time. They must also 'try* "to* show— and tbey lamentably fail in the attempt— tbat tbey can improve the English style on which, so many illustrious men of letters bars looked ' with mingled feelings of delight and despair.' " Some misconception may also arise from tbe formula used by the Bishop in the adrertisement calling attention to his lectures. He speaks ot tbis literary effort as "the Bevised Aut/iorited Version " (the italics are mine). This is precisely what it is %ot, aod what-, withont laying claim to prophetic powers, I think I may safely say H will never be. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in convocation recently, took especial care to disclaim any authority whatever for . this Yar-i sion. He Baid, speaking of a copy which it had been alleged (untruly) he had presented to tbe Queen, " The Version baa not been adopted by Conrocation, and it is merely laid before us. I beg to say that I have taken no ench step as has been ascribed to me in the st itea eat in question. . . .'-. T have had no part officially or personally in the matter. . . . It is important that this statement should go forth, for otherwise,f rom the statement which has appeared, it might appear as if Conrocation was more concerned ia the matter than it is, for all the relation Convocation has in the matter is this— that the Book lies opon tbe table." I can hardly beiiere that any attempt will be mada to oust our grand old Eoglish Bible from onr Churches to make place for this * unauthorised Version ; " but my object in thus fully quoting the worda of the Patriarch of the Anglican Communion is to show clearly, that such action wonld be arbitrary, and lacking, what all Britons ralue, authority.— l am, &c, Habitans ik Sicco.