About mid-February 1870, the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution to revise the English Bible. Near the end of the month the Convocation of the Province of York declined to join them in producing a revision. The London Times carried a report on the proposed revision, February 11, 1870 (p. 8). By the 5th of March, Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801-1885), the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, had written at least three letters about and in opposition to the idea. Shaftesbury was not a clergyman. He was, however, an avid evangelical Anglican who was active in Bible and benevolent work. For many years Shaftesbury was president of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1851-1885), as well as president of the Evangelical Alliance.
Below are two letters of correspondence from Lord Shaftesbury to The Times. (I will post the third letter tomorrow, d.v.) Shaftesbury,
among other things, was a philanthropist and member of parliament actively
engaged in the reform of certain English laws and standards – including the
lunacy laws and treatment of lunatics, the treatment of factory workers (many
of whom were children), and better housing for the poor. Much, but not all, of
his objection to the Bible revision centered in his conviction of the importance
of a common or standard Bible for all English-speaking people.
Everything below, if I have introduced no errors, was
written by Shaftesbury and appeared in The Times newspaper.
THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—As
President of the Bible Society, I request leave to address you, and through you
the public, on “the revision of the version of the Scriptures, as proposed by
the Upper House of Convocation,” at their sitting of the 11th of this month.
If
the suggested revision were intended to remove serious mistranslations
involving errors of faith and doctrine, we should, such error being admitted,
have nothing to say. But we have the remark of the Bishop of St. David’s, made
at this same sitting, who “did not believe that any alteration in the verbal or
grammatical construction of the New Testament would in any way affect the doctrine
which the Church of England now held.” At this point their Lordships, “contrary,”
as your reporter observes, “to their usual custom, broke out into cries of ‘Hear,
hear,’ ‘Hear, hear,’” thus giving to the sufficiency of our version of nearly
the whole of the Episcopal Bench.
His
Lordship of St. David’s proceeded to observe “that the issue of this movement
might be a Church Bible and a Dissenting Bible; and this would be such a
tremendous evil that no advantage which could possibly be gained could ever
compensate for it.”
This
statement, though most true, is very greatly under the mark. The English Bible,
as altered by the Bishops, will cease to be the Bible, not only of the
Nonconformists, but of the Scotch and Irish Presbyterian Churches; it would
cease to be the Bible of our brethren in the United States of America, and of
every Protestant speaking the English language over the entire surface of the
globe; we should, moreover, lie under the burden, the importance of which will,
of course, be variously estimated, of having the fifty million copies of the
Scriptures already issued by the society “synodically condemned.” Such is the
phrase by the two Houses of Convocation.
It would
be difficult to describe the benefits that have been derived by a very large portion
of the human race from this hearty, earnest, and general acceptance of the
authorized version; but it would be still more difficult to describe the manifold
evils that would flow from the disruption of it.
Nearly
all, I believe, both of Churchmen and Dissenters, would be most happy to leave
the translation as it at present exists, and to forbear the assertion of their
special criticisms on words and phrases; but if the Bishops will insist on such
minute accuracy, others will be equally positive in similar demands. Many will
ask, and justly ask, whether “the Church,” as understood in the present day, is
a due rendering of the Greek; and why should it be “Church” in one place, and “Assembly”
in another.
They
will also ask how far the word now rendered by “Bishop” designates a Bishop of
the present day; and, turning to the word “Priests,” they will, since all
possibility of mistake is to be avoided, require such a marginal note, at
least, as shall remove the confusion that now prevails between the priests of
the Old Testament and the priests of the New.
This
is effected in the French Protestant translations by the use of the word “Sacrificateur”—a
word which could never be used in our Prayer-book, or applied to designate a
Protestant minister.
In
the sincere hope that the public voice and opinion of all English-speaking
Protestants may avert this calamity.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
February 12. SHAFTESBURY.
[The Times, Monday, February 14, 1870, page 10.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A REVISED TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—When
I had the honour to address you a few days ago on the subject of a revised
translation of the Bible, I did so as President of the Bible Society, without
any intention of implying that I acted under the direction and sanction of the
committee. The gentlemen who form the body have instructed me that they desire,
for the present, to remain altogether neutral.
I am
in duty bound to state their wishes, and so correct any misapprehension that may
have arisen.
For
myself, I have no intention to remain neutral or silent, believing that a new
translation of the Holy Scriptures into the language of modern days, though it
will not affect in any degree our faith and doctrine, will produce a momentous
and permanent change in the thoughts and feelings of every English-speaking
people.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Feb 23. SHAFTESBURY.
[The Times, Thursday, February 24, 1870, page 10.]
No comments:
Post a Comment