Nov. 2.
Ir is a pleasure to cross swords with Professor Good-speed. Whatever we may think of "New Testament," we could not wish for a more stimulating controversialist. And may one venture to add that, if he had used the same literary style in his translation which is found in his letters, there would have been less objection to be raised against that unhappy book? Professor Goodspeed uses the argumentum ad hominem a little unfairly, asking certain] questions as to our practical knowledge and use of the Bible, and even appearing to imply that we use it very little. We do not care.to reply explicitly to questions of such a personal nature. But perhaps it will be enough to.say that the-writer of this and other articles on Professor Goodspeed's translation of the-New Testament could face most..of the Professor's.tests; Janu some knowledge of the sub-Jiect may surely be credited to that writer from the fact of his{ having ventured into' the "lists with an opponent who, in respect, of patristic and ' exegetical technology, could make mincemeat of him. Scientific. knowledge possibly influences Professor Goodspeed's attitude to the Bible more than he is aware, For instance, he is worried because the story of the woman taken in adultery is only found in oncins. before the eighth century. We do not care twopence when it got into the Gos-el of St. John so long as it was firmly there by the time of King James -and has been left there by most people since. We believe that the literary style and associations of: the "Authorized Version -are things -of incaleulable. worth, to be preserved at! all costs. He is for reducing it to the level of the lowest intelligence. "We agree that the Bible is not to be regarded merely as a classic, but -believe in educating readers up to rather than in.writing it down for them. We also agree that ithe meaning of the New Testament certainly should be grasped; but we are firmly of opinion that a little difficulty in the first apprehension is likely to make the lesson stick all the closer and longer in the mind.
Professor Goodspeed tells us that "modern discoveries of Greek papyri have shown that the Greek of the New Testament is colloquial Greek—the language of every day life." We do not know how modern these discoveries may be, but we distinctly recollect. being taught the same thing at school thirty years ago when working up some Gospel or Epistle for examinations; furthermore it ought to be plain to any seventeen-yearjold schoolboy who has some taste for the classics, that New Testament Greek is not_ the Greek of Thucydides or Plate. But when Professor Goodspeed says that "no other style (than the colloquial) has any status for translating it," he not only advances, to our mind, an untenable proposition, but he forgets that the language into which the compilers of the Authorized Version translated the i near to the colloquial of those days. Like the Bourgeois Gentilhomme, the English people.of the Elizabethan, age faisaient de la prose sans savoir, as may be seen in the dialogue of the humble folk. of, Shakespeare. who is, we believe, allowed to have been far too]
}good an artist to make his gravediggers. weavers, seamen etc. talk what Professor Goodspeed calls "high style." Even without going back to Shakespeare's times, anyone of middle-age and upwards can testify from personal recollection that the style and purity of spoken English are declining and to read even commercial correspondence of seventy or eighty years is to experience a positive shock at the phraseology it exhibits. an irenic commentary on the age which clamour so insistantly for the right of self-expression, that in the art of self-expression it is conspicuously, deficient, and whatever it has gained in freedom of speech is more than offset by the loose otcurity of its utterance.
Professor Goodspeed hurls at us St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians which he "counts as a dead loss for users of King James." Undeniably difficult. But St. Paul himself, more often, perhaps, than not, is very difficult; his thought is intricate and he has a habit of beginning a new sentence before he has; finished the one before; while so much of his writing is con-clitioned by the particular needs of the community he is addressing, that in any form he needs: to be read with a commentary, for proper understanding. For {these reasons, no doubt, Biblical students are not usually "put! on" toast, Paul until they have got up their intellectual muscle jon something easier' The toot fof the whole matter is, to our way of thinking, this: that the: language of the Authorized Version is so unapproachable grand, sonorous and expressive, that it} should on no account be tampered with for the sake of a few unfamiliar phrases. Admittedly large portions of it are difficult} understand, the later chapters-of Daniel, for instance, and many pages of the prophets, much of St. Paul, nearly all the Book of the Revelation. But} [these would be difficult in any language, just as Kant or Hegel, would be, and to some extent! they belong to the sphere special study, beyond what }might be called the essentials of religious teaching. If the occaional obscurities -which occur in the latter. portion.are beyond! the comprehension of ordinary pupils in the schools of America and England, and must accordingly be re-written in Chicago Whitechapel slang,. then the amount of money spent on education is being very ill laid! out. At best, Professor Good-speed has fallen into the error} common to many educationalists: of thinking that everything must be made easy nowadays and no obstacles be left in the path learning for the pupil himself] to overcome. At worst—but for that we must really refer readers to his New Testament.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.