Theo1689
Well-known member
We live in an age where we have tons of resources and information in our phones. You might think that would allow us to grow in knowledge and understanding, but it seems to have the reverse effect for many. Resources are so easy and quick to find, it doesn't take much effort on anyone's part. Many people think it is perfectly fine to "Google" something, and then repeat it in a forum or message board, without thinking about it, or studying the context, or anything else. I think it has actually made many people stupider.
Just today someone in this forum tried to make a point by quoting three outdated Bible translations. One of them was the "Mace" translation. Now, my preferred Bible translations are the NET and ESV, and for me it is important for good translations to be (1) modern, and reflect our current knowledge of the languages and the manuscript texts, and (2) done by committee, instead of being individual translations, for more checks and balances, and to avoid individual theological bias.
The "Mace" translation is a Bible translation done by Daniel Mace, in 1729, almost 300 years go. It is an individual translation, and too early to make use of all the knowledge of the text and the language we have today. I also found the following review of it online:
1) "The translation is often needlessly paraphrastic." (It is also important to recognize the translation style, whether it be literal translation, dynamic equivalence, or paraphrase.)
2) "In many places the meaning of the text is weakened by loose renderings."
3) "But after examining Mace’s Greek text separately, and judging it on its own merits, we must say that his revision of it was not very competently done. Although some of his alterations to the Received Text anticipated the results of later editors, many were very ill-founded, being capriciously chosen from the apparatus of Mill 1707 or made simply upon conjecture."
4) "Shortly after its appearance, Mace’s New Testament was the subject of a comprehensive refutation published by Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the late new Text and Version of the New Testament, wherein the Editor’s corrupt Text, false Version, and fallacious Notes, are Detected and Censured, in 3 volumes (London: R. Gosling, 1731-1732, reprinted in 1743). It was also castigated by eminent scholars (Michaelis among them), and was generally seen as an embarrassment to text-critical scholarship in England. "
5) Scottish Scholar George Campbell observes: "He has, along with his version, republished the Greek text, corrected, as he pretends, from authentic manuscripts. It does not, however, appear, that he has been guided by critical principles in judging of manuscripts, or of the preference due to particular readings. His chief rule seems to have been their conformity to his own notions, which has led him to employ a boldness in correcting altogether unwarrantable."
6) Samuel P. Tregelles wrote: "in 1729 Daniel Mace published his Greek Testament, with an English translation, in which he boldly and arbitrarily changed passages, with evidence or without it, in accordance with his own subjective notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no real or accurate scholarship, and possessed of but little principle; he so contrived to use remarks in Mill’s Prolegomena, as to have apparently the sanction of the name of that critic for his mode of editing passages."
Of course, the poster who cited the Mace translation is probably unaware of any of this... He simply found a translation that supported his viewpoint, and considered it "fair game". I personally have higher standards.
Maybe some of the above points are reasons why nobody's ever heard of this translation, and why nobody uses it.
Just today someone in this forum tried to make a point by quoting three outdated Bible translations. One of them was the "Mace" translation. Now, my preferred Bible translations are the NET and ESV, and for me it is important for good translations to be (1) modern, and reflect our current knowledge of the languages and the manuscript texts, and (2) done by committee, instead of being individual translations, for more checks and balances, and to avoid individual theological bias.
The "Mace" translation is a Bible translation done by Daniel Mace, in 1729, almost 300 years go. It is an individual translation, and too early to make use of all the knowledge of the text and the language we have today. I also found the following review of it online:
1) "The translation is often needlessly paraphrastic." (It is also important to recognize the translation style, whether it be literal translation, dynamic equivalence, or paraphrase.)
2) "In many places the meaning of the text is weakened by loose renderings."
3) "But after examining Mace’s Greek text separately, and judging it on its own merits, we must say that his revision of it was not very competently done. Although some of his alterations to the Received Text anticipated the results of later editors, many were very ill-founded, being capriciously chosen from the apparatus of Mill 1707 or made simply upon conjecture."
4) "Shortly after its appearance, Mace’s New Testament was the subject of a comprehensive refutation published by Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the late new Text and Version of the New Testament, wherein the Editor’s corrupt Text, false Version, and fallacious Notes, are Detected and Censured, in 3 volumes (London: R. Gosling, 1731-1732, reprinted in 1743). It was also castigated by eminent scholars (Michaelis among them), and was generally seen as an embarrassment to text-critical scholarship in England. "
5) Scottish Scholar George Campbell observes: "He has, along with his version, republished the Greek text, corrected, as he pretends, from authentic manuscripts. It does not, however, appear, that he has been guided by critical principles in judging of manuscripts, or of the preference due to particular readings. His chief rule seems to have been their conformity to his own notions, which has led him to employ a boldness in correcting altogether unwarrantable."
6) Samuel P. Tregelles wrote: "in 1729 Daniel Mace published his Greek Testament, with an English translation, in which he boldly and arbitrarily changed passages, with evidence or without it, in accordance with his own subjective notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no real or accurate scholarship, and possessed of but little principle; he so contrived to use remarks in Mill’s Prolegomena, as to have apparently the sanction of the name of that critic for his mode of editing passages."
Of course, the poster who cited the Mace translation is probably unaware of any of this... He simply found a translation that supported his viewpoint, and considered it "fair game". I personally have higher standards.
Maybe some of the above points are reasons why nobody's ever heard of this translation, and why nobody uses it.
