Lectures on Bible Revision

by Samuel Newth

In 1653 the charge that the New Testament “had been looked over by some Prelates, to bring it to speak the Prelatical language,” was formally repeated in the preamble of a Bill brought before the Long Parliament, which proposed the appointment of a committee “to search and observe wherein that last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates or printers or others.”[93] In 1659 a folio volume of 805 pages, entitled, “An Essay toward the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the Bible, or a Proof by many instances that the last Translation of the Bible into English may be improved,” was published by Dr. Robert Gell, “Minister of the Parish of St. Mary, Alder-Mary, London.” Dr. Gell was a man who stoutly maintained the doctrine that it is “possible and attainable through the grace of God and His Holy Spirit that men may be without sin,” and his book is an elaborate attempt to show that this doctrine “was frequently delivered in holy Scripture, though industriously obscured by our translators.” An attack of another kind was made a quarter of a century later, by a Roman Catholic writer named Thomas Ward, who, repeating many of the charges made against the earlier English versions by Gregory Martin, one of the authors of the Rhemish version, charged the translators with corrupting the Holy Scriptures by false and partial translations, for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage in the controversy with the Church of Rome.[94]

These hostile criticisms, though made in a spirit of partisanship and marred by much uncharitableness and unfairness, were nevertheless of service. They forced upon all, though in a rude and unpleasant way, the recognition of the fact that the new version, with all its excellences, was still the work of fallible men; and despite their passion and their hard words, they did undoubtedly hit some blots that here and there disfigured the sacred page. To this extent they served to prepare the way for further revision.

A second stage in the process of preparation is seen in the various attempts which have been made to produce a version which should remove acknowledged blemishes, and more faithfully convey the meaning of the holy Word. Some of these have been based upon a well-conceived plan, and have sought to accomplish the desired end by the united efforts of a band of fellow-labourers; others have been the work of individual scholars, and were for the most part of a tentative character, intended simply to show what ought to be attempted, and how it might be done; others, again, have been the unwise labours of men who worked upon false principles, and with insufficient knowledge; but all have in their own way helped on the work, the former two classes by their felicitous renderings of some passages, and the light they have thrown upon the meaning of others, and the last mentioned class by their clear demonstration of what a translation of the Scriptures ought certainly not to be.

The first[95] serious attempt at a further revision was made by the Rev. Henry Jessey, M.A., pastor of that greatly persecuted Congregational Church in Southwark, which had been gathered by Henry Jacob in 1616. In the time of the Commonwealth proposals were made by Jessey, that “godly and able men” should be appointed by “public authority” “to review and amend the defects in our translation.” Pending their appointment, he set himself to secure the co-operation of a number of learned men, at home and abroad, writing to them in the following fashion: “There being a strange desire in many that love the truth, to have a more pure, proper translation of the originals than hitherto; and I being moved and inclined to it, and desirous to promote it with all possible speed and exactness, do make my request (now in my actual entrance on Genesis) that as you love the truth as it is in Jesus, and the edification of saints, you with others (in like manner solicited), will take share and do each a part in the work, which being finished will be fruit to your account.” Of the names of his fellow-workers the only one recorded is that of Mr. John Row, Hebrew professor at Aberdeen, “who took exceeding pains herein,” and who drew up the scheme in accordance with which the work was carried on. Jessey’s proposal received at least so much of support from “public authority,” that he was one of the committee whose appointment was recommended to the House of Commons in 1653. The result is thus quaintly told by Jessey’s biographer:[96] “Thus thorow his perswasions many persons excelling in knowledge, integrity, and holiness, did buckle to this great Worke of bettering the Translation of the Bible, but their names are thought fit at present to be concealed to prevent undue Reflections upon their persons; but may come to light (if that work shall ever come to be made publick), and unto each of them was one particular book or more allotted, according as they had leisure, or as the bent of their Genius, advantages of Books or Studies lay, which when supervised by all the rest, dayes of assembling together were to have been set apart, to seek the Lord for His further direction, and for conference with each other touching the matter then under consideration. In process of time this whole work was almost compleated, and stayed for nothing but the appointment of Commissioners to examine it, and warrant its publication.” The death of Cromwell, and the political events which followed, prevented the realization of Jessey’s hopes. It had been with him the work of many years of his life, and his soul was so engaged in it that he frequently uttered the prayer, “O that I might see this done before I die.”

The ecclesiastical events arising out of the Act of Uniformity (1662) will sufficiently account for the absence of any efforts of revision during the latter part of the seventeenth century. In the earlier part of the following century there appeared one of those ill-advised attempts, whose chief use is to serve as a beacon of warning, in the Greek and English New Testament, published A.D. 1729, by W. Mace, M.D.[97] In his translation this author allowed himself to employ an unpleasantly free style of rendering, and deemed it fitting to substitute the colloquial style of the day for the dignified simplicity of the version he undertook to amend.

Towards the latter part of the century a considerable number of well-meant endeavours at revision were made by devout and scholarly men.

In 1764 “A new and literal Translation of the Old and New Testament, with notes, critical and explanatory,” was published by Anthony Purver, a member of the Society of Friends.

In 1770 there was issued “The New Testament, or New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek according to the present idiom of the English tongue, with notes and references,” by John Worsley, of Hertford, whose aim, as stated in his preface, was to bring his translation nearer to the original, and “to make the present form of expression more suitable to our present language,” adding, with a laudable desire to repudiate all sympathy with those who forced the Scripture to say what, according to their own fancies, it ought to say, “I have no design to countenance any particular opinions or sentiments. I have weighed, as it were, every word in a balance, even to the minutest particle, begging the gracious aid of the Divine Spirit to lead me into the true and proper meaning, that I might give a just and exact translation of this great and precious charter of man’s salvation.”[98]

In 1781 Gilbert Wakefield, late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, but then classical tutor of the Warrington Academy, published “a new translation of the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, offered to the public as a specimen of an intended version of the whole New Testament, with a preface containing a brief account of the Author’s plan.” This was followed in 1782 by a new translation of the Gospel of Matthew, and in 1791 by a translation of the whole of the New Testament.[99]

In 1786 a Roman Catholic clergyman (the Rev. Alexander Geddes, LL.D.) issued a prospectus of “a New Translation of the Holy Bible from corrected texts of the originals, compared with the Ancient Versions.” This prospectus was very favourably received by many of the leading Biblical scholars of the day, especially by the great Hebraist, Dr. Benjamin Kennicott, Canon of Christchurch, and by Dr. Robert Lowth, Bishop of London, and was followed in 1788 by formal proposals for printing the book by subscription. The first volume appeared in 1792, with the title “The Holy Bible, or the Books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the Originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks.” Two other volumes were afterwards published; but the death of the author, in 1801, prevented the completion of the work.[100]