Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 70:277 (Jan 1913)
Article: A Critical Examination of “The Bible of 1911”
Author: Randolph H. McKim

BSac 70:277 (Jan 1913) p. 123

A Critical Examination of “The Bible of 1911”

Randolph H. McKim, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L.

“The Bible of 1911 “was an enterprise undertaken by the Oxford University Press in celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of the issue of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. It was intended not as a “new version “of the Bible, but as a “commemorative edition,” which, “while preserving the form, the dignity, the high religious value and literary beauty, of the version of 1611, shall be freed by careful revision from the archaic grammatical forms and errors in translation which are in no sense essential features, but which on the contrary are recognized defects.” The editors were instructed to change the text of the A. 5:only where” (1) it is misleading; i.e., where the English rendering misses the point of the original or perverts the meaning”; “(2) where the A. 5:has an obscure rendering of a passage sufficiently clear in the Hebrew and Greek texts”; “(3) where the A. 5:is infelicitous in the choice of English words, even if not exactly misleading”; “(4) words obsolete are to be exchanged for words now in the usage of good writers.” In communicating to myself these instructions, the representative of the Oxford University Press stated that “these better renderings are at hand in the many revisions and translations which have appeared during the last fifty years.” The

BSac 70:277 (Jan 1913) p. 124

editors (appointed in December, 1909, and January, 1910) were instructed in January, 1910, that their first revision should be in the hands of the editor-in-chief by the first of March, 1910; and that copy for the work should be in the hands of the printer by October, 1910.

Having been honored by being appointed one of the editors of this interesting work, I have felt great reluctance to make a public criticism of the manner in which the task has been performed; but as my association in this task not only conferred an honor, but imposed a responsibility to the public, I have finally concluded that I am under obligation to point out how seriously the execution of this enterprise has fallen short of the program according to which it was undertaken. In view of the high encomiums passed upon “The Bible of 1911,” by a large part of the Christian press, and by many prominent scholars and theologians, my criticism of the work may possibly have little weight with the public; but at least I shall have freed myself of responsibility for the many errors which, in my judgment, this edition contains. I should add that it was understood from the beginning that the editors should receive no pecuniary compensation for their labor. This fact makes me the more free to express my honest opinion of the work.

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe