‘Whoever examines our version in present use, will find that it is ambiguous and incorrect,
even in matters of the highest importance.’ -— (Prof. S ymond’s Observations on the Expediency
of revising the present Version, 1789.)
‘ At this time, a New Translation is much wanted, and universally called for.’-^(Green's
Preface to Poetical Parts of the New Test.)
‘ Great improvements might now be made, because the Hebrew and Greek languages
have been much better cultivated, and far better understood, since the year 1600.’ — (Dr,
Kennicott’s Remarks, &c., 1787, p. 6.)
‘ The common version has mistaken the true sense of the Hebrew in not a few places.
Is it nothing to deprive the people of that edification which they'might have received, had
a fair and just exposition been substituted for a false one ? Do we not know the advantages
commonly taken by the enemies of Revelation, of triumphing in objections plausibly
raised against the Divine Word, upon the basis of an unsound text or wrong translation?’
—(B laney’s Prelim. Disc, to Jeremiah, 1789.)
‘ They [the forty-seven] are not acquainted with the Hebrew, without which no man should
pretend to be a critic upon the writings of the Old Testament. It has some peculiar properties
and idioms which no other language has, with which' every critic should be
acquainted. . . . The Hebrew is fixed in nature, and cannot change. . . . He should be
acquainted with the genius of the Hebrew tongue, and with its manner of expressing spiritual
things, under their appointed images in nature.’ — (R omaine’s Works, vol. v. p. xvi.)
‘ It is necessary that translations should be made from one time to another, accommodated
to the present use of speaking or writing. This deference is paid to the heathen i
classics, and why should the Scriptures meet with less regard ?’ — (Purver.)
‘ The common English translation, though the best I have seen, is capable of being |
brought, in several places, nearer to the original.’ -— (Wesley.)
For other arguments, continues our author, see Bishop Newcombe’s “ Chief reasons in \
support of a corrected English translation of the Scriptures for national use : ” adding on j
his own account : —
“ Notwithstanding all that has been done, the translators have left it [our. version] defective
in mood, tense, person, gender, infinitive, imperative, participles, conjunctions, kc. ; and j
in many instances, almost in every page, we find verses consisting in a great part of italics: \
in some, a third part ; in others, nearly half; as may be seen in the Bibles where the words
for which there is not any authority in the original are always so marked.”
Descending into works of less exclusive circulation, what do we encounter ?
“ It is not to be denied that a translation of Holy Scripture, if undertaken in the present
day, would have many advantages superior to those which attended king James’s translation.
. The state of knowledge is much improved. . . . Our language has undergone some
changes in the course of two centuries, by which, it has Varied from being precisely the
same as when our translators wrote. Many words which yvere then polite and elegant, are
now vulgar, to say the least. . . . Nor can we refrain from complaining also of the negligent
manner in which the press has been conducted in all our public editions : what should be
printed in poetry is set as prose ; what should be marked as a quotation, or a speech, reads
like a common narrative. . . . And this perplexity is occasionally increased by improper
divisions of chapters and verses, which biit too often separate immediate connection.. 4
Undoubtedly, the present version is sufficient to all purposes of piety.’’^ (T aylor’s CalmeU
Dictionary of the Holy Bible—voce “ Bible.”)
“ It is needless to pronounce a formal encomium o>n our authorized version. T h e tune,
learning, and labor expended on it were well bestowed. It far surpasses every othèr Englw
version of the entire Bible in the characteristic qualities of simplicity, e n e r g y , purity o
style, as also in uniform fidelity [ / ] to the original. A revision of it, however, is wan * j
or rather a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek* based upon it [ / ] ”— (“ S. D., 1D
K i t t o , ii. p. 9 1 9 .)
“ No less than 30,000 various readings (58) of the Old and New Testament have been
(5 8 ) Say rather, with the Rev. Prof. Moses S tuart — “ Investigation has dissipated this pleasant dream. n
the Hebrew MSS., that have heen examined, some 8 0 ,0 0 0 various readings actually occur, as to the Hebrew
consonants. How many as to the vowel-points and accents, no man knows. And the like to this is tr u e of 6
New Testament”—(Crit. Hist, and Defence o f the O. Test. Canon; Andover, 183 5 ; p. 192.) “ Nemo est, q u i in w*
aliquo codice, sive MSto sive impresso, textum incorruptum exhiberi arbitratur. Riderent docti; si q u i s co •
cem aliquem cum istis Apostolorum autographis, in omnibus, consentire dixerit”—(K ennicott: Dissert. Gen.,
par. 13, p. 6.)
discovered ; . . . and putting altérations made knowingly, for the purpose of corrupting the
text out of the question, we must admit, that from the circumstances connected with transcribing,
some errata may have found their way into it ; and that the sacred Scriptures have
i n this case suffered the same fate as other productions of antiquity. . . . In the last 220
vears critical learning has so much improved, and so many new manuscripts have come to
light* as to call for a revision of the present authorized version.” — (S e a r s , Hist, of the
Bible, 1844, pp. 651, 665.)
“ The second thing which I would strongly recommend, is constantly to study and peruse
the Original Scriptures ; the Old Testament in the Hebrew, and the New Testament in the
Greek. . . • There is no such thing as any written Word of God independent on the word of
man. The Lord Jehovah may have uttered the whole Law from Mount Sinai ; and, yet,
Moses may not have accurately recorded it. . . . In like manner, the Gospel may have been
fully preached by Christ ; and, yet, the Evangelists may not have fully recorded it. . . .
One painful conviction is, that the plain import of the Word of God has been most fantastically,
ignorantly, and wilfully perverted, as well in the translation as in the interpolations.
. . . Many gross perversions, not to say mistranslations, of the Sacred Text have been
occasioned by dogmatical prejudices and sectarian-zeal.”—(Rev. J ohn Oxl ee , Letters to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, London, Hatchard, 1845; pp. 117, 137-8.)
Fuerunt autem, relates Kennicott, qui de hac re aliter senserunt : among the non-extinct is
the Rev. Dr. Horne, who makes the fiercest battle in defence of “ our authorized version ;”
quoting many writers on the opposite side to ours, whose combined “ association,” like the
one prelauded, fails in authority for want of Hebraical knowledge in its parts ; but, when
the best is done for it, he naively remarks on our t r a n s l a t i o n “ It is readily admitted
that it is not immaculate; and that a revision, or correction, of it is an object of desire to
thé friends of religion ” — and then the reverend gentleman breaks forth in rhapsodical
glorifications and thanksgivings, that it is not worse ! (59)
Nor are the erudite among Christians alone the denouncers of king James’s version.
Anglicized Israelites hold it in estimation equally low, to judge by the following Editorial :
“ What we should like to see at the World's Fair.—It would give us a great deal of pleasure
to see at the World’s Fair a correct English version of the Bible, resting upon the -solid
fundament of the results of modern criticism ; reaching the elevation of modern science,
and being accomplished by men of a thorough scholastic education, a,nd free from every
foreign influence, who take the letter for what it is without paying any regard to authorities,
and without coming to the task with a certain quantity of prejudices. Such a work would
reconcile science and religion : it would reclaim many an erring wanderer to the straight
path of truth ; it would evaporate many a prejudice and a superstition ; it would greatly
modify many sectarian views, and would closely unite the men of opposite nations.^ It appears,
however, that the men for this task are not yet among the mortals ; for the theologians
come to the Bible with an established system, which must lead them away from the
true import of letters, where they find, again their own system whenever it can be done
conveniently ; and where their sentiments frequently overbalance their critical judgment.”
—■(The Asmonean, New York, July 22, 1853.)
Thus we might go on, citing work after work wherein, if king James’s version is not
denounced for its perversions of the “ original sacred tongues,” its erroneous readings are
more or less apologetically but thoroughly confirmed by many instances in which the
erudition and fairness of the authors compel them to substitute their own translations for
those of our “ authorized” copy. Notable examples may be seen in the recent work
of our much-honored fellow-citizen, Dr. McCulloh. (60).
Albeit, as said before, if our version were decently accurate, why should so many laborious
men run the risks of incurring some theological obloquy,, coupled with pecuniary
loss, in efforts to correct the false renderings of that superannuated edition by publishing
emendatory retranslations in English ? Among the many we have consulted may be cited :
“ The Holy B ibl e, according to the established Versions, with the exception of the substitution
of the original Hebrew names, in place of the words Lord or God, and of a few
corrections thereby rendered necessary. (London, 1830 ; Westley and Davis.)”
This book, however, seems to have closed at 2 Kings. The uninitiated may be informed
(59) Op. cit.; ii. pp. 77-83.
(60) Credibility of the Scriptures; Baltimore, 1852. See particularly vol. ii. Appendix, “On the Human Soul,”
VP. 465-489.