An American Translation of the Bible

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

AN AMERICAN TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.

When the subject of having a new translation of the Bible was first agitated in this part of the world, it created a great deal of bitter feeling and criticism. There were so many venerable associations connected with the present rendering, (known as King James’s translation,)—there was such a sacredness about the book itself, that to most persons’ minds the proposition to ignore the current version, and replace it by a modern American one,¹ was heard with a thrill of horror.

But a few clergymen, members of churches, and several learned savans, persistently adhered to the project, taking frequent occasion to place before their congregations and friends, the arguments in its favor. The Secretary of the Bible Association in New York, in the course of a meeting of the members of that body, some time since, made a remarkable speech, in which he stated, among many facts quite unknown to the common public, that there were, to a demonstration, over three thousand translator’s errors in the now generally used version of the Holy Scriptures! Some of these errors he specified; several of them are verbal, but there appeared to be plenty of a sufficiently serious character.

Among the mis-translated words on which most stress is laid on by one of the religious denominations, is the word “baptize,” which, in nearly every case, according to the New Bible reformers, should be rendered “immerse.” In the course of the discussion upon the matter, much has been said also of the word “hell,” as used in the New Testament. Some of the ministers and learned persons insist that the term in the original does not mean any thing like what the English word “hell” means, but in some cases it is “a place of graves,” and in others “a barren or desolate place,” &c.

We mention these as specimens of the errors in the popular version, according to the statement of the Bible Reformers. We have not heard any attempt made to answer these points of the new men, but surely a very good argument could be made on the Old Translation side too.

We should say the strongest point to be presented against a change would be something to the following effect; To the masses of the people, at the present day, the Bible has as a main recommendation, all the hallowed associations of time, of the fathers, and of being endorsed through so many generations. This arouses a feeling which all the infidelistic arguments in the world fail to affect—they sink powerless before it. But if the substratum of this feeling were removed, what would be the result? Is this a favorable time to bring out a sort of modern-ancient Holy Writ, and put it before the people on its own merits? Probably not. Probably the New Bible will “go” among the learned, the curious, and certain religious denominations who feel flattered by some of the corrections the text; but we doubt whether it has any chance among the people.

Another thing is, that a re-translation of the Bible is, in one sense, a final confession that the work is a work of men’s hands, unavoidably liable to error. On the minds of a vast proportion of Christendom such a confession would jar painfully. It would put the Bible on a level with other books.

And yet the American Translation will undoubtedly be completed, with more or less exactness. It has already been begun, and the New Bible Association, in New York, have actually issued in printed form several of the Books of the Old Testament, as corrected. We shall get these Books, and, in our next article, describe, among other matters about the modern version, the most interesting points of interest between them and the rendering of the Old Translation.

---