--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Frederic Clift collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 7 number: 10 published: 1904-08 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'Frederic Clift, "The Bible—English Revision, 1881, American Standard Revision, 1901," *Improvement Era* 7, no. 10 (August 1904): 774–777.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0710unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera0710unse start_page: 774 end_page: 777 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1904-08) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera0710unse publication_year: 1904 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1904, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # The Bible—English Revision, 1881, American Standard Revision, 1901 THE BIBLE. ENGLISH REVISION, 1881— AMERICAN STANDARD REVI- SION, 1901. BY FREDERIC CLIFT, M. D., OF PROVO. The article on the Bible, in the July number of the Era, has called forth enquiries as to the origin and history of the two re- visions of 1881 and 1901. The revision of 1881 had its origin in action taken by convo- cation of the English church, in February, 1870. The scope of the work was strictly denned and limited by a series of resolutions, one of which states: "We do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible or any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary." Two companies were formed; one for the revision of the Old, and the other for the New Testament. Shortly after, the co-operation of American scholars was in- vited, and two committees were formed in America to act with the English companies. In making their final report, the revisers, referring to the American committee, say: "We transmitted to them, from time to time, each general portion of our first revision, and received from them in return their criticisms and suggestions. These we considered with much care and attention, during the time we were engaged on our second revision. We then sent over to them the various portions of the second revision, as they were completed, and received further suggestions, which, like the for- mer, were closely and carefully considered. Last of all, we for- warded to them the revised version in its final form; and a list of THE BIBLE. 775 those passages in which they desire to place on record their pref- erence of other reading and renderings will be found at the end of the volume." Among the rules of procedure agreed to at a later date, we find: (3) "Each company to go twice over the portion to be re- vised, once provisionally, the second time finally." (4) "That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly pre- ponderating." (5) "To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision by each company, except two- thirds of those present approve of same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities." The time devoted to the work was some fifteen years the — New Testament being published in 1881, and the Old Testament not being issued until 1885. The "task was revision, not re-trans- lation;" accordingly every effort was made to retain the language and phraseology of the King James or Authorized version. One of the chief blemishes in this version is the studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occur- ring in the same context. This studied variety of rendering con- duced to its happy turns of expressions and musical cadences, but was not consistent with the requirements of faithful translation. In the revision of 1881, one of the problems was to "discrim- inate between varieties of rendering which were compatible with fidelity to the true meaning of the text, and varieties which in- volved inconsistencies, and were suggestive of difference that had no existence in the Greek" The difficulty was often overcome at the expense of the grace and dignity for which the Authorized ver- sion is commended; but the added truthfulness of the 1881 so version must be approved by all who desire absolute correctness and uniformity of translation, rather than euphony and mastery of language. By thus adhering to uniformity of words and phrases, the several gospels and books of the New Testament in their Eng- lish dress have been brought into closer relationship with each other. Further, a number of interpolated or spurious readings have been discovered and struck out, with the almost unanimous approval of Christian scholars. As an instance, take I John 5: 7, 8: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are 7Y6 IMPROVEMENT ERA. three that bear witness in earth —the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The twenty-four words printed in italics are not to be found in the best authorities, or ancient texts and versions, and they have consequently been thrown out as spurious. Notwithstanding, they are largely relied on by those who accept the dogma taught in the Athanasian and kindred creeds, as to the personality of the Triune God. Another point of excellence is that quotations from the poet- ical books of theOld Testament, as also the hymns in the begin- ning of St. Luke's gospel, have been printed in such a manner as to call attention to their poetical character; and thus their force and pertinence are more fully felt. The division of the books into chapter and verse, first adopted in 1551, A. D., is very convenient for reference; but this minute subdivision often presents obstacles to a right understanding of the scriptures. In order, therefore, to assist the reader in follow- ing the current of the narrative or argument, and to make him to obtain a just perception of the true continuity of the subject, the text in the 1881 revision is arranged in paragraph form. The division, however, into chapter and verse is still retained, the nu- merals being placed in the margin. The American committee felt that if their views had been more generally accepted, instead of being relegated to an appen- dix, the English revision of 1881 would have been still more valu- able. With the approval and indorsement, therefore, of that committee, a further revision, known as the American Standard Revision, 1901, has been prepared, in which the readings and ren- derings preferred by the American committee have been adopted into the text. An illustration of a series of progressive steps in bringing about desired correctness of translation, is found in Matt. 3: 1-6 and 11. In the King James, the Greek word "en" in verses 1 and 6 is translated "in," but in verse 11 it is translated "with." In the 1881 revision, the same want of uniformity in translation is maintained, for the text retains the translation "with," but an al- ternative translation "in" is suggested in the margin. In the ap- pendix, the American committee's preference is shown thus: "After baptize, let the margin 'or,' 'in,' and the text 'with' exchange places." In the American standard revision, 1901, this is done, 1HE BIBLE. Ill and "in" becomes the uniform and correct translation in each of these three verses. It is new translations, admitted, even by those opposed to that these modern versions are more accurate than the King James, yet the Bible reader, whose time and opportunities do not permit him to compare it with the original texts, or other trans- lations, accepts it with its many faults, because it is the Bible of his forefathers. Conservatism in a matter of this kind is to be commended, but those who accept the eighth article of the Church will seek for the best translation, and through the keys promised by our Father in heaven, will draw living water from the inspired writings of the prophets. The Rev. Dr. Holland, speaking of the revised Bible, at a recent Episcopal convention at St. Louis, argued that "the Greek language was fitted to convey the original text of the New Testa- ment, and that the English spoken in King James' time was like- wise the choice vehicle of the inspired expressions. He considered it an insult for any one to offer him an altered text' of Shakes- peare. The same attitude he maintained toward the Bible. The doctor forgets that Shakespeare wrote in English, and that to alter his text would amount to forgery. I, too, should feel in- sulted if me an altered text of the Vatican, Sinaitic he offered or Alexandrian Mss., and expected me to accept it, because of its added grace and dignity. Personally, I expect to make use of the American version of 1901, in preference to other versions where accuracy in transla- tion is justly impeached; but I cherish a fond regard for the Bible of my fathers, and its During my missionary intrinsic beauties. work, it was my practice to prove my points from the other man's Bible; and, as one holding the Priesthood, I am prepared, with God's help, to defend the faith once delivered to the Saints, from the King James' or other versions that may be used by those hostile to the great latter-day work of this dispensation. In conversa- tion with an Armenian gentleman, a few days ago, I had the privi- lege of hearing him translate a few verses from an Armenian text of the New Testament, and I was agreeably surprised to find that the translation made by my friend from his own Bible, an ancient version, more nearly approached the true meaning of the