When the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution
to revise the English Bible, certain “men that had understanding of the times”
stepped up almost immediately to question its propriety. Even before they could
know that a new and unproven Greek text would be “unawares brought in” to
replace the Textus Receptus, they perceived precarious possibilities in the
proposal. The Earl of Shaftesbury’s opposition perhaps carried extra weight
because he was both a friend of the common man and president of the Bible
Society. Serious spokesmen set themselves in array against him. In his third letter to The Times, he expanded his argument.
Shaftesbury sends a copy of a letter he sent to “a learned professor” (though
the professor’s name is redacted).[i] Not only was there the danger of destroying
a standard English Bible, but he feared what would happen when it should “fall into the hands of
the Neroes and Diocletians of Divinity.” Among them he saw ritualists,
Socinians, and infidels. Opponents of Shaftesbury used criticisms similar to
modern-day opponents of King James defenders – he was a “worshipper of the mere
words and syllables.” The battle is still being fought today.
THE REVISION OF THE BIBLE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—In defence of the
course I have taken respecting the revision of our Authorized Version, I beg
you to oblige me by inserting a letter I have addressed in reply to a learned professor,
who was so good as to communicate with me on the subject.
It was not intended for
publication, but it is the best answer I can give to the several queries that
are propounded to me.
Your
obedient servant,
March 5. SHAFTESBURY.
Dear Professor,—It
seems somewhat presumptuous on my part to undertake a letter of explanation to
a learned doctor in divinity; and to suppose that a layman, whose Greek is “long
gone” (as old Latimer said) “to the school of oblivion,” should dare to say a
word to an authority when he ‘cannot answer him one of a thousand.’
I
have read, however, with all the attention that it commands the treatise you
have been so good to send me. As a simple work of sacred literature and classical
acquirements, I have only to admire and be silent; but as a plan for a revision
of the existing English Bible, and as an effort to render it more generally
acceptable, I venture to regard it with very different opinions.
I
have read, also, to a great extent, the “Hints” by that accomplished scholar
and amiable man, the late Professor ______. There are, of course, many
suggestions that I am not able to criticize, and many that I could not fail to
approve.
But
his book aroused in my mind apprehensions of a tenfold magnitude. It (so it
struck me) this reverential, sympathizing, and judicious man—this sober, yet
most determined, champion of the existing version can so indulge in trifling,
unmeaning, and needless charges, what will be the issue, when this blessed old
confessor (and martyr as it would be) shall fall into the hands of the Neroes
and Diocletians of Divinity? Will they not, where they cannot dare to
mistranslate, translate anew, and effect their purpose by forcing passages to
appear to be different, because the language of them is altogether remodeled?
Patience
and habits of critical comparison are not the characteristics of the working classes.
The translators will have introduced, so the people will think, a “strange”
Gospel, and the multitude, believing that it is “another” will finally lose
faith in all.
Could
the revision be limited to marginal readings, I should feel much less objection.
But is it possible to open the sluice gates and provide that the water shall
flow through by driblets? Your excellent and discriminating rules would avail
for nothing. For even if the Commission were safely constructed (which it could
not be) and gave a fair and moderate version, the stirring public would never
remain satisfied—naturally and inevitably—for the existing barrier will have
been condemned by a majority of the Bishops, and by learned folk in the
Universities and other places. The new version would certainly leave many
imperfections and introduce, probably, not a few of its own. The cry for
further amendment would know no end, because the “Party of Progress,” strengthened
by all that had gone before, would never rest from their efforts to efface the
Bible, the whole Bible, and every reminiscence of the Bible from the hearts and
minds of men.
It
would be difficult, if no impossible, to construct an impartial Commission. The
time of James I. are very different from the times of Queen Victoria. The
immense variety of opinion on doctrinal matters, and the immense diffusion of
knowledge, both deep and superficial, in these days, would render necessary
such a combination of members as would include the extremest forms of Ritualism,
Socinianism, and Infidelity. Numerically, and as scholars, these professors
would be very strong, and experience will not allow us to believe that these
learned persons, after years of thought and study in the same groove, fixed and
sincere in their peculiar opinions, would not entertain (unknown to themselves,
no doubt) a decided bias towards special renderings of the sacred text. The
issue might thus be either than through disagreement we should have no new
version at all, and so have disturbed the public mind for nothing, or that a
translation would come forth in every respect inferior, made up of compromises
and mutual concessions.
Besides,
let us suppose that the Commission are of one mind in their report, will the
scholarship inside satisfy the scholarship outside? To say nothing of the
contradictory renderings of the same passages which will be urged by men of
profound learning, the swarms of readers and writers now-a-days who live on small
criticism and cavil will show their wit by taking exception to everything, and
in efforts to prevent any public confidence.
Here
is an instance of it. The able and learned Professor of Hebrew, Dr. Pusey, some
time ago published his lecture on the minor Prophets. In the preface he
mentioned the authorised version of them in the highest terms, and preferred it
to every other. A leading newspaper within the last week, when urging a new translation
of the Scriptures, particularly specified the obscure character of the version
of the minor Prophets, and denounced it as enigmatical and unintelligible.
Nor
are the times less different in relation to the mass of the people. The penny post,
the penny press, the discussion halls, the wide diffusion of all kinds of literature—sensational,
controversial, political, and sceptical—have not tended to render the heart of
the people solid, reverential, and amenable to authority. Their favourite
advisers may drive them to and for as they will, “that which wanteth in the
weight of their speech being supplied,” as we read in Richard Hooker, “by the
aptness of men’s minds to accept and believe it.”
If
this be so, can we hope to see again an “Authorized Version”? I doubt it. The
present version had no authority from Parliament or Orders in Council, nor even
from Convocation. It derived, and it still holds, all its authority from admiration,
affections, and universal acceptance. A new translation will enjoy little of this
general favour, and certainly there would be but small obedience to any Royal,
Legislative, or Episcopal decree.
One
of the newspapers, in condemning my opinion, charged me with sheer idolatry, as
a bigoted worshipper of the mere words and syllables of our present version.
The Editor, of course, is at liberty to use his own phraseology, and the public
to judge of it. I admit that I love, intensely too, its rich, melodious, and
heart-moving language. It is like the music of Handel, and carries Divine truth
and comfort to the inmost soul. This language has sunk deep into the moral
constitution of our people. No one who associates with them can doubt it. It is
the staple of their domestic intercourse, the exponent of their joys and sorrows.
And I will maintain that a rude and sudden descent from the majestic and
touching tones of our wonderful version to the thin, Frenchified, and squeaking
sentences in modern use would be an irreparable shock to every English-speaking
man who had drunk in the old and generous language almost with his mother’s
milk.
But
all this, and much more, I should be prepared to surrender were the proposed
new version directed to the correction of important passages affecting our
Faith and Doctrine. In that respect, I have no more fear, in reference to the
Bible, of a new and honest translation than I have of the deductions of science
honestly applied. The grand old book will laugh them all to scorn, and will
float, like Noah’s Ark, under Almighty care, on the waves of a deluge, that may
overflow a reckless and unthinking world.
In my
first letter to The Times I ventured to urge the unspeakable value of a
common version for all multitudinous branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. I will
not now repeat that argument. Perhaps the evil I anticipated from any serious
change is half done when Bishops and Professors declare the necessity of an
ample revision. But I believe that were the Bible-reading people polled at this
moment, man by man, woman by woman, child by child, the overwhelming majority
would announce that they stood firm in the inheritance of their forefathers,
and that, here at least, they would never ‘exchange old lamps for new.’
Pray
excuse the length of this letter. It is my defence, an office which no one but
myself is willing to undertake.
With since thanks for
your courtesy and kindness, believe me very faithfully yours, SHAFTESBURY.
The Rev. the Professor
_____.
[The Times, Monday, March 7, 1870, page 12.]
