48 



E. J. SEWELL, ESQ., OX THE 



have a powerful effect in changing public opinion, which already 

 shows some signs of modification on this subject. And the 

 effect of such a version in making the Bible a more vivid and 

 interesting book would be nearly incalculable. 



The subject just discussed is one relating only to versions in 

 certain languages and is not of general application. But it 

 leads directly to the consideration of a question which has to 

 be solved in the case of all versions of the Bible made into 

 languages which have reached any stage of literary culture. As 

 instances there may be mentioned Chinese, the literary 

 languages of India, Arabic, and other languages. In all these 

 cases, the literary cultivation of the language and the existence 

 of a class of scholars has brought into being two forms of the 

 language, one the literary form used by and familiar to scholars, 

 and the other the language of everyday life. And, by the 

 language of everyday life, I do not mean rustic or merely 

 colloquial forms of speech, but the language of ordinary 

 educated people in letters, sermons, speeches in law-courts, as 

 well as in the ordinary transactions of everyday life. There 

 are, we are told, many cases in which these two forms of the 

 language are entirely different, not merely in vocabulary but 

 also in the grammatical forms adopted in connecting words and 

 phrases into sentences. And here, the question at once arises 

 — which form of the language is to be adopted for the transla- 

 tion of the Bible ? The one form of the language is the literary 

 standard ; it is that used in works considered to be master- 

 pieces of the language ; to have acquired it and to use it is the 

 mark of a scholar, and a book couched in any other language is 

 liable to provoke dislike and contempt among scholars. On the 

 other hand, since the overwhelming majority of people in every 

 country are not scholars, to them a translation into the language 

 of scholars is not easily understood, its form is an obstacle to its 

 being accepted by them and is likely to lead to its being 

 admired for its learned character — and neglected — a result the 

 very opposite of that which is the aim of all translations of the 

 Bible. We have to choose between the disapproval of scholars 

 and literary authorities, if the one be adopted, and neglect on 

 the part of people in general if we select the other. 



In Chinese, the solution adopted has been to have two trans- 

 lations, one ("YVenli) into the language of scholars and the other 

 (Mandarin) into what is, by comparison, the language of the 

 people. And, in other cases, the same result, though not 

 formally adopted and carried out, is beginning to develop. In 

 some of the Indian languages where the standard style set by 



