Dr. Alexander Carson

50 Dr. Carson’s statement is self-evident) it will be clearly seen that the making of a real translation is not merely a matter of giving the literal meaning of the words of the original; and further that, in order to be a good translator, one needs other qualifications besides a knowledge of the original tongue. So, as be tween the two rival Versions, much depends upon- the question whether the translators of 1881 were as well qualified for their work as those of 1611, As a help in the decision of this question we give, in this chapter, a few comparisons where changes have been made. We believe, however, that merely upon viewing broadly the two Versions most readers will recognize the great superiority of the Old Version. That work has commended itself to the acknowledged masters of the English tongue, as well as to the millions of ordinary readers, for more than three centuries, and it has occupied in the world a place unapproached by any other book in any language. And although we know it is only a translation, and although we know also that (as Joseph Parker said) “a translation may have its faults, and copyists may make blunders, yet we still call it the Holy Bible,” and it is to us, as it has been to ten generations past, in truth and reality, the Living Word of the Living God. Such being the state of the case our wisdom is to hold on to the Old Version, and to every part of it, except in specific cases (and they are but few) where it can be shown by clear proof that a change is needed.

Examples of Changes in Translation

In taking notice of a few of the thousands of new readings introduced by the Revisers, it should be remembered that, according to the instructions under which they acted, they were not to make “any new translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary/’ and further they were instructed that “in such necessary changes, the style of the language em ployed in the existing Version be closely fol lowed.” Can any “competent” scholar tell us that even a sizable fraction of the host of changes now embodied in the R. V. were “necessary”? And will anyone pretend that, in the changes which have been introduced, the style ? of the existing Version has been “closely followed’’?

We have already pointed out that, in the first chapter of Matthew alone, the Revisers have made sixty changes, of which, according to a competent authority (Dr. Malan) fifty-eight were ‘’either ill judged or unnecessary.” Going on to Matthew 4 : 12, we find that the words ‘’John was cast into prison” are changed to ‘ ‘ was delivered up. ‘ ‘ It may be claimed that the latter is a more literal rendering; but it is not an improved translation ; for the best translation is that which best gives the sense of the original, and