ANNEX 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 NOTES 
 
 PROPOSED AMENDMENT 
 
 AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE 
 HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 WILLIAM SELWYN, 
 
 CANON OF KLV, 
 
 i. vnv MAKGARET'S ruortssoit OF DIVINITY, 
 CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 M rrfv TcXeibTrjra. <f>epi!)fj.e&a. Hebr. VI. i. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 DEIGHTON, BELL, AND Co. 
 
 LONDON : BELL AND DALDY. 
 
 1856. 
 
 *
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 PRINTED AT TUB UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 
 t 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Review of Professor Scholefield's Hints for an Improved Translation of 
 
 the Neio Testament .......... 5 
 
 Notice of recent attempts at Revision of the English Bible . . . i r 
 
 Notice of Motion in Convocation . . . . . . . 14 
 
 Review of English Translations 15 
 
 Translation of 1611 22 
 
 Changes since 1611 . 25 
 
 Remarks on Objections to an Authorized Revision 32 
 
 12
 
 ON THE 
 
 PROPOSED AMENDMENT 
 
 OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 The Observations contained in pp. 5 10, were written in 1854, and 
 are now reprinted from the Memoir of the late Rev. James 
 Scholefield, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of 
 Cambridge. 
 
 HINTS FOR AN IMPROVED TRANSLATION OF THE NEW 
 TESTAMENT, 1832. 
 
 WE have now to ti-ace the fruits of the Professor's own love 
 for the Sacred Volume, and of the diligence with which he brought 
 to bear upon the original text that accuracy of judgment, which 
 he had acquired by long familiarity with the Greek language. 
 His revision of the excellent work of Bishop Middleton " On the 
 Greek Article," and of the Notes of Professor Dobree on the 
 New Testament, probably quickened, if it did not suggest, his 
 desire of lending a helping hand to bring the Authorized Version 
 of the New Testament into the closest possible accordance with 
 the Original. His contribution to this work appeared in 1832, 
 under the title of "Hints for an Improved Translation of the 
 New Testament." 
 
 The feelings and views with which he published this Essay 
 are clearly stated in the Preface. With sentiments of the deepest 
 reverence for those " venerable men, who were raised up by the 
 "Providence of God, and endowed by his Spirit, to achieve for 
 
 2107605
 
 England her noblest work, in the authorized translation of the 
 " Scriptures ;" he desired to assist in removing from this glorious 
 work its few human blemishes; to "attempt something towards 
 carrying a little nearer to perfection, a work which is already so 
 "near it" He thought it an act of charity and duty, towards 
 the ordinary ranks of those who go daily to draiv water out of 
 those wells of salvation, and also towards the preachers of the 
 Gospel, to clear away from the Word of God, as much as possible, 
 all adventitious difficulty, resulting from defects of translation, 
 and to present it to the English reader with the greatest possible 
 advantage. 
 
 Such was the unassuming and useful purpose of this publica- 
 tion. It may be asked with some reason, 'Whether the title 
 corresponded with sufficient exactness to the design V We need 
 not scruple to confess that it did not ; for the Professor himself 
 allows this, in the Preface to the Second Edition, in 1836. 
 
 " The title of this publication has, not unnaturally, led to the 
 " enquiry, whether I was really desirous that a new Translation 
 " of the Greek Testament should be undertaken ; to which my 
 " reply has uniformly been in the negative." 
 
 Had the work been entitled at the first, ' Hints for some im- 
 ' provements in the Authorized Version of the New Testament,' 
 there would probably have been no question raised on the pro- 
 priety or prudence of the design ; the minds of scholars would 
 have been directed simply to the substance of the book, and to 
 the careful examination of the several passages in. which the Pro- 
 fessor suggests an improvement. 
 
 Notwitlistanding all the care that was taken, in the reign of 
 King James I., to secure the co-operation of the best scholars of 
 the time, and all the provisions made for frequent and full revision 
 of their work ; it would be very unreasonable to maintain that 
 the Authorized Version of A. D. 1611 has reached the highest 
 possible degree of excellence. When we remember that, since 
 that time, large stores of new materials for ascertaining the 
 genuine text, ami the true interpretation of Holy Scripture, have
 
 been given to the world; it is reasonable to expect that the 
 labours of later scholars may be eminently useful, both in the Old 
 and New Testament ; in correcting occasional inaccuracies, in 
 clearing up doubts, in removing variations. The very fact of the 
 Translators having often placed one interpretation in the text, 
 another in the margin ; and their conscientious practice of distin- 
 guishing by a different type* the words introduced by themselves, 
 as required by the difference of idiom; sufficiently disclaim all 
 assumption of infallibility, and invite the endeavours of succeeding 
 times to the perfecting of their noble workt. 
 
 On the manner in which the Professor has executed his design, 
 there has never, we believe, been any difference of opinion. It 
 has been allowed by some of the best judges, and by the highest 
 authority, that his proposed amendments are moderate, judicious, 
 and valuable. They are confined to improvements in the trans- 
 lation of the received text, and do not, so far as our observation 
 extends, rest upon any various readings of MSS. The principle 
 of Bishop Middleton, with respect to the Greek article, is carried 
 out in many passages, with a general reference to his treatise, for 
 the illustration of each proposed rendering ; and the Professor 
 avails himself in several places, of the corrections suggested by his 
 predecessor, Dobree. 
 
 * In the edition of 1611 the text is in the Old English character ; the sup- 
 plemental words in small Roman letter. 
 
 t The observations of Professor Marsh (Lectures, p. 297) fully justify the 
 design of Professor Scholefield's Hints. 
 
 "Now as this collation was made by some of the most distinguished scholars 
 ' in the age of James I., it is probable that our authorized version is as faithful 
 ' a representation of the original Scriptures as could have been formed at that 
 ' period. But when we consider the immense accession which has been since 
 ' made, both to our critical and philological apparatus ; when we consider, that 
 ' the whole mass of literature, commencing with the London Polyglot, and 
 ' continued to Griesbach's Greek Testament, was collected subsequently to that 
 ' period ; when we consider that the most important sources of intelligence for 
 ' the interpretation of the original Scriptures, were likewise opened after that 
 ' period, we cannot possibly pretend that our authorized version does not 
 ' require amendment." 
 
 Professor Marsh refers to the remarks of Archbishop Newcome, and Mac- 
 knight, on the necessity of revision.
 
 8 
 
 The book was dedicated to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, 
 and Candidates for Holy Orders, in the Church of England. A 
 second Edition, with some further hints, appeared in 1836 ; and 
 a third in 1850, incorporating the former publications. In the 
 Preface to this Edition, a few general observations are given, with 
 the view of assisting younger students to ascertain the sense of 
 the sacred writers. A copy of this third Edition is now before us, 
 containing the Professor's last corrections and additions in MS. 
 
 One beautiful specimen of the way in which the slightest 
 possible alteration of words, with a change of punctuation, may 
 restore to a passage its true sense and force, may be seen in the 
 note on John x. 15 (1st Edition). For the sake of clearness, we 
 will set the Authorized Version and the proposed alteration side 
 by side, followed by the Professor's note*. 
 
 JOHN x. 14, 15. 
 
 Authorized Version. Proposed Translation. 
 
 14 I am the good shepherd, 14 I am the good shepherd, 
 and know my sheep, and am and know my sheep, and am 
 known of mine. known of mine ; 
 
 15 As the Father knoweth 15 Even as the Father know- 
 me, even so know I the Father : eth me, and I know the Father : 
 and I lay down my life for the and I lay down my life for the 
 sheep. sheep. 
 
 NOTE. " The common translation contains a proposition un- 
 " questionably true and important ; but one which does not seem 
 " to have any intelligible connection with the context. The mu- 
 " tual knowledge of each other, existing between the Shepherd 
 " and the sheep, as expressed in the amended translation, may be 
 "compared with statements of a corresponding parallelism in 
 " chap. vi. 57 ; xiv. 20 ; and xvii. 22, 23." 
 
 The translation here proposed by the Professor does not originate with 
 v V Ulm ; ( an 'l tbc same remark may be applied to several other passages) it is 
 f ^ound in the Gothic Version, and in Luther's German Translation.
 
 It seems impossible to doubt, that the adoption of this, and 
 many similar suggestions, would tend to make our English Version 
 more perfect, and to promote the edification of the Church. It is 
 a work upon which we may imagine the spirits of our forefathers, 
 who have laboured on the vernacular versions during the last 
 thousand years, Bede, Wiclif, Tyndale, Coverdale, and the noble 
 band of A. D. 1611*, looking down with satisfaction and joy ; a 
 great cloud of witnesses compasses us round, in this as in every 
 other work of faith, and bids us " lay aside every weight," and 
 " go on unto perfection." 
 
 The importance of this work of improvement is enhanced an 
 hundredfold by the circumstances of these latter times ; by the 
 wonderful extension of the English language over the world; and 
 by the increasing efforts made to multiply translations of the 
 Scriptures into the tongues of heathen nations and islands, for 
 which our Authorized Version forms the general basis. The 
 Church of England stands by the wells of salvation, and is in 
 duty bound to use her utmost watchfulness and diligence, that the 
 water which she dispenses may be as pure and clear as possible. 
 
 If it might be allowed to follow up the Professor's Hints by 
 suggesting a safe and practicable way in which the desired end 
 may be attained; we would take this opportunity of proposing 
 that the same principles which guided the work of Translation 
 in the reign of King James I. should also govern its improvement. 
 The first rule given to the translators, might also stand at the 
 head of the instructions for the revision, viz. : " The ordinary 
 " Bible, read in the Church, to be followed, and as little altered, 
 "as the original would permit." A body of learned men, selected 
 from the Universities and from the ranks of Hebrew and Greek 
 scholars throughout the country, might be appointed by authority, 
 to receive and weigh in the balance all such Hints as those of 
 Professor Scholefield, and others, comparing them diligently with 
 
 * It is pleasing to think that the work of amendment should have been A 
 undertaken by a member of the Chapter of Ely, two of which body, Bois and t/_ tf\ 
 Duport, were among the translators of 1611.
 
 10 
 
 the original languages, and the ancient versions ; to obtain the 
 opinions of foreign scholars ; and to publish the results of their 
 
 enquiries. 
 
 The next step would probably be, to print all the corrections 
 which may be approved, separately, at the end of our English 
 Bibles; or to admit them into the margin*; from whence, after 
 due time allowed for the consideration of the learned, and for 
 graduallv familiarizing the public mind to the change, they might 
 finally be received into the text. 
 
 Professor Scholefield published also three editions of the 
 Greek Testament, in which the Original, and the Authorized 
 English Version, were arranged in parallel columns. 
 
 It is probable that the same feeling which prompted the publi- 
 cation of the " Hints for an improved Translation " led also in 
 some measure, to the combination of the Greek and English texts 
 in one volume. By no other plan could the fidelity of the Au- 
 thorized Version be so readily and constantly tried in the balance. 
 
 * It is rather surprising to find that what is here recommended to be done 
 by authority, has been done already by some of the reTisers of the Oxford Edi- 
 tions of the Bible. Bat see below, pp. 16 31. " With regard to the Marginal 
 Readings of our Bible. . . . the Reader it to be reminded that they are not att 
 inserted by the Trantlatort, but many are of a much more recent date, and conse- 
 quently do not possess the same authority: few of them, however, can be con- 
 sidered other than useful" (Pref. to Scholefield's Hints.) 
 
 "In the marginal references, which are introduced in this edition, the trans- 
 " lotion* indosed between bracket* are those v&ch hare been added subsequently to 
 the edition of 161 1, chiefly by Dr Blayney, in bis revision published at Oxford, 
 1769." (Pref. to Gr. and Eng. Test. Ed. 1836.)
 
 11 
 
 Since the above remarks were published, the question of the 
 Revision of the Authorized Version has been brought more 
 directly into public notice. 
 
 In the Edinburgh Review, (No. 208, published in Oct. 1855,) 
 appeared an article on the subject, giving some account of an 
 Edition of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Religious Tract 
 Society, under the following title; 
 
 " The Annotated Paragraph Bible j containing the Old and 
 " New Testaments, according to the Authorized Version, arranged 
 " in Paragraphs and Parallelisms ; with Explanatory Notes," 
 
 London, 1853. 
 
 In this Edition the text is newly divided into paragraphs, 
 according to the natural divisions of the sense and subject ; but, 
 what is of still greater importance, in the notes are given nume- 
 rous alterations of the Authorized "Version, gathered from the 
 records of Sacred Criticism, which appear to the Editors more 
 nearly to express the sense of the original Scriptures. 
 
 Of these alterations the Reviewer speaks thus : " The cor- 
 "rections proposed in this book are multitudinous. They are 
 " also, for the most part, very judicious ; and their appearance 
 " in a work of this description, not only proves that our Common 
 "Version requires a diligent Revision, but that the great body 
 " of the people are aware of it, and that their trust in its per- 
 "fection, which has been so long opposed against any suggestion 
 " of improvement, can no longer be alleged as a pretext for delay- 
 " ing the attempt." 
 
 The article concludes by advocating the appointment by the 
 Crown of a company of learned men, similar to the body selected 
 by King James the First, for the last Revision of the Sacred 
 Volume ; and suggesting " that they should constitute a penna- 
 " nent Commission ; and that the important office of guarding, 
 " superintending, and perfecting the text of the Inspired "Writings, 
 "both in the oi-igiual languages, and in the translation, should 
 " be committed to their charge/'
 
 12 
 
 Further, in the year 1854 was published at New York, the 
 first portion of a Revised English Version of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, "on the basis of the Common English Version," by the 
 "American Bible Union." 
 
 "This institution was organized June 10, 1850. Its object 
 "is to procure and circulate the most faithful Versions of the 
 " Sacred Scriptures, in all languages throughout the world." 
 
 Of the two portions* of their work which have reached this 
 country, the first (1854) contains the last six books of the New 
 Testament; the second (1856), the first fourteen chapters of the 
 book of Job. The following notice is prefixed ; 
 
 " This Revision is not final. It is circulated in the expecta- 
 " tion, that it will be subjected to a thorough criticism, in order 
 " that its imperfections, whatever they may be, may be disclosed 
 "and corrected." 
 
 In both these publications the page is divided into three 
 columns, as follows : 
 
 KING JAMES' VEKSION. 
 
 ORIGINAL TEXT. 
 
 REVISED VERSION. 
 
 with notes below, citing authorities and alleging reasons for all 
 the variations introduced in the Revised Version. 
 
 The following Rules and Instructions are given for the con- 
 duct of the Work of Revision : 
 
 " GENERAL RULES FOR THE DIRECTION OF TRANSLATORS AND 
 REVISERS EMPLOYED BY THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. 
 
 " 1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed 
 "it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the 
 "time they were first written, must be translated by corre- 
 
 * These publications may be obtained of Triibner and Co., Paternoster-row, 
 London.
 
 13 
 
 " spending words and phrases, so far as they can be found, in 
 "the vernacular tongue of those for whom the version is 
 "designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness. 
 
 " 2. Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made 
 " the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with 
 " the established phraseology shall be avoided ; and only 
 "such alterations shall be made, as the exact meaning of 
 " the inspired text and the existing state of the language 
 " may require. 
 
 " 3. Translations or revisions of the New Testament shall be 
 "made from the received Greek text, critically edited, with 
 " known errors corrected. 
 
 " SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REVISERS OF THE ENGLISH 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 "1. The common English Version must be the basis of the 
 " revision ; the Greek Text, Bagster and Sons' octavo edition 
 "of 1851. 
 
 " 2. Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any 
 " authority additional to that of the reviser, such authority 
 " must be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page 
 " or in an appendix. 
 
 " 3. Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which 
 "the phraseology of the common version is changed, must 
 "be carefully examined in every other place in which it 
 "occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the re- 
 " viser be given as to its proper translation in each place. 
 
 " 4. As soon as the revision of any one book of the New 
 " Testament is finished, it shall be sent to the Secretary 
 " of the Bible Union, or such other person as shall be 
 " designated by the Committee on Versions, in order that 
 "copies may be taken and furnished to the revisers of the 
 "other books, to be returned with their suggestions to the 
 "reviser or revisers of that book. After being re-revised 
 " with the aid of these suggestions, a carefully prepared copy 
 " shall be forwarded to the Secretary."
 
 14 
 
 With these facts before us, it can hardly be questioned that 
 the time is coine for the Church of England to take this sub- 
 ject into serious consideration; and to determine whether the 
 work of Revising and bringing nearer to perfection her own 
 Version, (the general excellence of which is universally admitted) 
 shall be left to other hands; or whether the permission and 
 authority of the Crown shall be invoked, to institute a search- 
 ing and effective Revision of the English Bible, by the united 
 labours of learned men in our own country. 
 
 The following Notice of Motion was given in the Lower 
 House of Convocation, on Feb. 1, 1856, and the subject will 
 probably come under discussion at the next meeting. 
 
 " To propose a Petition to the Upper House, requesting His 
 " Grace and their Lordships to take into their consideration the 
 " subject of an Address to the Crown, praying that Her Most 
 " Gracious Majesty may be pleased to appoint a body of learned 
 " men, well skilled in the original languages of the Holy 
 " Scriptures; 
 
 " To consider of such Amendments of the Authorized Version 
 " as have been already proposed, and to receive suggestions from 
 ' all persons who may be willing to offer them ; 
 
 " To communicate with Foreign Scholars on difficult passages 
 " when it may be deemed advisable ; 
 
 " To examine the Marginal Readings which appear to have 
 " been introduced into some editions since the year 1611 ; 
 
 " To point out such words and phrases as have either changed 
 " their meaning, or become obsolete in the lapse of time ; 
 
 " And to report from time to time the progress of their 
 work, and the amendments which they may be prepared to re- 
 commend *." 
 
 A similar motion was made in the House of Commons, during the late 
 u, by James Heywood, Esq., but after a short discussion, was withdraw?!.
 
 15 
 
 With a view to the deliberation on this subject, it may be 
 useful to present a brief retrospect of the several English Versions 
 (taken from Lewis' history), and of the changes which have been 
 introduced in various editions of the Authorized Version, since the 
 year 1611. 
 
 REVIEW OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Several versions of portions of the Holy Scriptures, especially 
 of the Psalter and the New Testament, are recorded to have been 
 made, first in Anglo-Saxon, and afterwards in English, at various 
 times from the seventh to the fourteenth century. Some of these 
 early versions are still extant. 
 
 About the year 1379, JOHN WICLIF "set about the translating 
 " the whole Bible into the English then spoken. This translation 
 " he made from the Latin Bibles then in common use, or which 
 " were at that time usually read in the Church; the reason of 
 " which seems to have been, not that he thought the Latin the 
 " original, or of the same authority with the Hebrew and Greek 
 " text, but because he did not understand those languages well 
 " enough to translate from them. He likewise chose to translate 
 " word for word, as had been done before in the Anglo-Saxonic 
 " translation, without always observing the idioms or proprieties 
 " of the several languages, by which means this translation in such 
 " places is not very intelligible to those who do not understand 
 " Latin *." 
 
 So offensive was this translation in certain quarters, that " a 
 " Bill, we are told, was brought into the House of Lords (13 Ric. 
 " II.) for the suppressing it." On which the Duke of Lancaster, 
 the king's uncle, is reported to have spoken to this effect : " We 
 " will not be the dregs of all; seeing other nations have the Law 
 " of God, which is the Law of our Faith, written in their own lan- 
 " guage." At the same time declaring in the most solemn manner, 
 
 * Lewis, Hist, of Eng. trait si.
 
 16 
 
 " That he would maintain our having this Law in our own tongue 
 " against those, whoever they should be, who first brought in the 
 " Bill." The Bill was thrown out; and the followers of Dr Wiclif 
 were encouraged to make another vei'sion, or rather an improve- 
 ment of Wiclifs Version. 
 
 Early in the reign of King Henry VIII., WILLIAM TYNDAL 
 resolved to undertake the translation of the Holy Scriptures from 
 the original Hebrew and Greek into English ; " having perceived 
 " by experience how that it was impossible to stablish the lay- 
 " people in any truth, except the Scriptures were plainly laid 
 " before their eyes in their mother-tongue, that they might see the 
 " processes, orders, and meaning of the text." 
 
 The New Testament was printed A. D. 1526, with a notice 
 " desyring tJiem that are learned to amende if ought were found 
 " amysse;" the Pentateuch in 1530; Jonah in 1531; and sub- 
 sequently other portions of the Old Testament. 
 
 Many editions of Tyndal's New Testament were circulated in 
 England, and the Bishops having made complaint of its inaccuracy 
 to the king, it is reported that his highness, " in pursuance of his 
 " own settled judgment, that a great deal of good might come of 
 " people's reading the New Testament with reverence and folio w- 
 " ing of it, commanded the bishops to call to them the best learaed 
 " of the two universities, and to cause a new Translation to be 
 " made, that the people should not be ignorant in the Law of 
 " God;" and, on the 17th of March, 1533, the Convocation of the 
 Province of Canterbury resolved, "That the Holy Scripture should 
 " be translated into the vulgar tongue." A similar resolution was 
 passed in the following year. 
 
 Strype (Memoir of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 24) intimates that 
 the archbishop engaged in this design, and for this purpose took an 
 old English Translation of the New Testament, which he divided 
 into nine or ten parts, and sent them to the best learned bishops 
 and others, to make a perfect correction of them. But this good 
 design was stopped by the refusal of one of the bishops to take his 
 assigned part.
 
 17 
 
 In the year 1535 was printed the whole Bible, translated into 
 English by MYLES COVERDALE, with a dedication to the King. Of 
 this Bible only two editions appear to have been published; the 
 second in 1550, republished with a new title in 1553. 
 
 In 1536 the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury again 
 took the subject in hand, and agreed upon a form of petition to be 
 presented to the King, " that he would graciously indulge unto his 
 " subjects of the laity the reading of the Bible in the English 
 " tongue, and that a new translation of it might be forthwith 
 " made for that end and purpose." 
 
 Soon after the finishing of Coverdale's Bible, injunctions to the 
 Clergy were issued by the authority of the King's Highness (Fox's 
 Acts, &c. p. 524), " That every person or proprietary of any parish 
 " church within this realme, shall on this side the feast of St Peter, 
 " ad vincula, nexte comming, provide a boke of the whole Bible, 
 " both in Laten and also in English, and lay the same in the quire 
 " for everye man that will to loke and reade thereon : and shall 
 " discourage no man from the reading any parte of the Bible, 
 " either in Latin or in English, but rather comfort, exhort, and 
 " admonish every man to read the same as the very word of God 
 " and the spiritual foode of manne's soul, &c." 
 
 This seems to prove that Coverdale's Bible was licensed by the 
 King, there being .no other whole Bible in English at this time. 
 
 In 1537 was published another English Bible in folio, under 
 the title of 
 
 Mathews's Bible. 
 
 This was partly Coverdale's version, and Lewis remarks, that 
 " the curators of this Edition, among whom I reckon Archbishop 
 " Cranmer, paid an equal respect to the labours of both these 
 " translators, by printing the translation of Tyndal so far as he 
 " went, and supplying what he left undone with the translation 
 " made by Coverdale. As to the name of Thomas Mathews, it 
 " seems a fictitious one." 
 
 In 1539 was printed 
 
 2
 
 18 
 
 CRANMER'S, or the GREAT BIBLE, in a large folio, with the fol- 
 lowing title : 
 
 " The Byble in Englyslie, that, is to say, the' content of all the 
 holy Scripture loth of the olde and newe testament, truly trans- 
 lated after the veryte of the Hebrewe and Greke textes by the 
 dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in tlw 
 forsayd tonges" 
 
 This Edition was a revision of Mathews's Bible, and several 
 alterations and corrections are made in the translation. And 
 here, perhaps, we may notice the origin of the Italics used in our 
 present Version to mark the words used in the translation, which 
 are not found in the original. 
 
 " First, whereas often tymes ye shall fynde a small letter in the 
 " texte, it signyfyeth, that so moche as is in the small lettre, doth 
 " abounde and is more in the common translacyon in Latin than 
 " is found either in the Hebrew, or in the Greke, whych wordes 
 " and sentences we have added, not only to manifest the same 
 " unto you, but also to satisfye and contente those that here before 
 " tyme hath myssed soche sentences in the Bybles and New Tes- 
 " taments before set forth." 
 
 It will be observed, however, that this distinction applies rather 
 to words and clauses not warranted by the originals, than to words 
 required by the difference of idiom, in order to give the sense. 
 
 Several Editions of this Bible appeared in quick succession; 
 and in May, 1640, came forth a proclamation of the King, " by 
 " which the curates and parishioners of every parish were required 
 " under the penalty of 40s. a month that they should be without 
 " it, to provide themselves of this Bible of the largest Volume 
 " before All Saints Day next coming." 
 
 About the same time with Cranmer's was published another 
 English Bible, translated by Richard Taverner, which is supposed 
 to be a revision of Mathews's Bible, correcting both the trans- 
 lation and notes, wherever the Editor thought it needful. Two 
 more Editions of this Bible were printed, but it never came into 
 public use.
 
 19 
 
 In 1541 the King repeated his injunction " for the setting up 
 of the Bible in the great Volume in eveiy Parish Church in 
 England" 
 
 Complaints having been made (by the party who were opposed 
 to the reading of the Scriptures in English) that the translation 
 thus authorized was in many places erroneous and heretical, in the 
 Convocation which met Feb. 16, 1542, the Archbishop, in the 
 King's name, required the Bishops and Clergy to revise the Trans- 
 lation of the New Testament. And in their 3rd session, portions 
 were assigned to each of the Bishops. 
 
 The design, however, was not carried into effect, and it 
 was determined by the King, with the advice of Cranmer, 
 that the matter should be taken out of the hands of the Con- 
 vocation, and referred to the two Universities : of which nothing 
 came. 
 
 In 1543 an Act of Parliament was passed, condemning TyndaTs 
 translations as " crafty, false, and untrue," and forbidding them to 
 be kept or used ; and also placing restrictions on the reading of 
 any English Versions. This Act was repealed in the first Parlia- 
 ment of K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547 ; and the King renewed the 
 injunction for providing every Church with the whole Bible of the 
 largest Volume in English, and required the Clergy to exhort and 
 encourage the people to read the same. Now, also, it was enjoined 
 tliat the Epistle and Gospel should be read in English ; and one 
 Chapter of the Old and New Testament on every Sunday and 
 holy-day. 
 
 Queen Elizabeth, soon after the beginning of her reign, renewed 
 the injunction of her predecessors, that every parish should be 
 provided with " one booke of the whole Bible of the largest Volume 
 in English," and in 1562 appeared another folio Edition of the 
 Great Bible, " according to the translation that is appointed to be 
 read in Churches" This was followed by another Edition of the 
 same in 1566. 
 
 In this Edition every chapter has the contents prefixed, the 
 same with those in Mathews's Bible, and the same references in 
 
 22
 
 20 
 
 the margin, with some additions ; what is not in the Hebrew or 
 Greek is printed in a smaller letter*. 
 
 Two years after, in 1568, appeared another Edition of the same, 
 in quarto, by the Queen's Printers. 
 
 With respect to this "Version, it should be mentioned, that it 
 is said in the title of the Psalter first printed with the Liturgy, in 
 1552, that it is after the translation qftJie Great Bible^. 
 
 Of this translation of the Bible by Tyndal and Coverdale, and 
 its revisions by Archbishop Cranmer, &c. as contained in the Great 
 Bible, many complaints, we are told, were made even by those who 
 favoured the English Bible, as well as by those who opposed it. 
 Errors of various kinds were pointed out by Sandys, Bishop of 
 Worcester (afterwards Archbishop of York), and others ; and 
 Archbishop Parker intimated, in a letter to Mr Secretary Cecil*, 
 " that another special Bible for the Churches was intended to be 
 set forth as convenient time and leisure should hereafter permit." 
 
 In pursuance of this intimation, Archbishop Parker, following 
 the example of Cranmer, divided the whole Bible into several 
 parts, which he distributed to divers of his brethren the bishops, 
 and to some other learned men of his acquaintance, including the 
 Dean of Westminster, and two canons of Canterbury. The ma- 
 jority were bishops, from whence this translation came to be called 
 THE BISHOPS' BIBLE. It was published in folio, in 1568. 
 
 The reason given in the Preface for undertaking this work was, 
 that " the Copies of the former Translation were so wasted, that 
 " very many Churches wanted Bibles, and that they were very 
 " faultily printed. This gave occasion to some well-disposed men 
 " to review it, to add some more light in tlie translation and order 
 " of the text, and to print it more correctly : in doing which they had 
 "followed tlie former translation more than any other, and varied 
 
 * It is, however, to be observed that in both these two last-named editions, 
 the text, i John v. 7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, <tr. 
 (which had been distinguished in former editions) is printed in the same letter 
 with the other texts. 
 
 t Lewis, p. 224. + Life of Parker, p. 207.
 
 21 
 
 "as little as possible from it, unless where they observed it was not 
 " so agreeable to the original text." 
 
 In the same Preface, the Archbishop observes: "No offence can 
 " justly be taken for this new labour, nothing prejudicing any other 
 " man's judgment by this doing ; nor yet hereby professing this to 
 " be so absolute a translation as that hereafter might follow no 
 " other that might see that which as yet was not understood" 
 
 He also cites the judgment of Fisher, once Bishop of Rochester : 
 
 " It is not unknown, but that many things have been more 
 " diligently discussed, and more clearly understanded, by the wits 
 " of these latter dayes, as wel concerning the Gospels, as other 
 " Scriptures, than in old time they were. The cause whereof is, 
 " for that to the old men the ice was not broken, or for that their 
 " age was not sufficient exquisitely to expend the whole main sea 
 " of the Scriptures, or else for that in this large field of the 
 " Scriptures a man may gatJier some ears untoucJied after the 
 " harvest-men, how diligent soever they were." 
 
 In this Bible the several additions from the Latin Vulgate, in- 
 serted in the Great Bible in a small letter, are all omitted. Verse 
 7 of 1 John v. which was before distinguished by a different letter, 
 is here, as in some former Bibles, printed without any distinction. 
 
 This Bible was sanctioned by the Convocation of the Province 
 of Canterbury in 1571, and ordered to be placed in cathedrals and 
 parish-churches. 
 
 A second Edition was published in 1572, with a few altera- 
 tions. The Psalter is printed in two columns. On the right hand 
 is the New Translation in the Roman letter, with the words that 
 are not in the Hebrew, in the English letter. 
 
 In the left-hand column is the translation of the Great Bible 
 in the English letter. 
 
 The reason of this seems to have been, that at this time the 
 Psalter was not printed with the Book of Common Prayer, as it is 
 now, but was read out of the Bible. 
 
 Many Editions followed, in folio and quarto ; Mr Lewis knew 
 of only one in 8vo ; the reason of which he supposes to be, that
 
 22 
 
 this Bible was principally designed for the use of churches ; the 
 Geneva Bible (made by some English refugees at Geneva in 1557, 
 and 1560) in 12mo and 4to, being commonly used in families. 
 
 In all the later Editions of the Bishops' Bible the Psalter is 
 according to the translation of the Great Bible, that of the Bishops' 
 Bible being quite omitted, probably to save expense in printing. 
 
 The last Edition mentioned by Lewis is that of 1682, in folio, 
 printed by Robert Barker, the Queen's Printer. 
 
 The history of the Bishops' Bible closes with the account of 
 the complaints made against it by Hugh Broughton, a great 
 scholar in Hebrew and Latin, and of his endeavours to execute 
 a more exact Version from the original tongues. These complaints, 
 though urged with great arrogance and contempt, perhaps con- 
 tributed to excite or strengthen the feeling which arose in the 
 reign of King James I. for a further Revision of the English 
 Bible. 
 
 Translation of A. D. 1611. 
 
 In 1603, on the second day of the Conference held at Hampton 
 Court, Dr Reynolds, the foreman and speaker of the Puritans, 
 moved His Majesty, " that there might be a new Translation of 
 the Bible." 
 
 The King said in his reply, that " he wished that some special 
 " pains should be taken in this matter for one uniform translation, 
 " and this to be done by the best learned in both Universities ; 
 " after them to be revised by the Bishops and the chief learned 
 " of the Church ; from them to be presented to the privy-council ; 
 " and last of all to be ratified by his royal authority, and so this 
 " whole Church to be bound to this translation, and not to use 
 " any other." 
 
 This design was soon after set on foot; in 1604, a Royal 
 Commission was issued, authorizing fifty-four learned men to meet 
 together, confer, and consult, for the preparation of a Version 
 more faithful and exact than any preceding. 
 
 The history of this last Authorized Version, the distribution 
 of the Sacred Books among the several companies of Translators,
 
 23 
 
 the arrangements for securing a careful revision of every portion, 
 and the successful completion of the whole in 1611, are so well 
 known from the Introduction to Mant's Bible, and from many 
 other publications, especially those of Dr Todd, that we need not 
 dwell upon them. 
 
 But for our present purpose it is desirable to notice one or 
 two points. 
 
 1. The King in a letter, dated July 22, 1604, addressed to the 
 Archbishops of Canterbury and York, required them " to move 
 " all the Bishops to inform themselves of all such learned men in 
 " the several dioceses as, having especial skill in the Hebrew and 
 " Greek tongues, had taken pains in their private studies of the 
 " Scriptures for the clearing of any obscurities either in the Hebrew 
 " or the Greek, or touching any difficulties or mistakes in the former 
 " English translation, which was now to be thoroughly viewed and 
 " amended, and thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging 
 " them to and signifying the King's pleasure therein, that they send 
 *' such their observations either to Mr Lively, the King's Header of 
 " Hebrew at Cambridge ; Dr Harding, the King's Reader of 
 " Hebrew at Oxford ; or Dr Andrews, Dean of Westminster ; to 
 " be imparted to the rest of their several Companies, that so this 
 " intended translation might have the help and furtherance of all 
 " the principal learned men in the Kingdom." 
 
 2. The first rule given to the Translators was as follows ; 
 
 " The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called t/te 
 Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original 
 will permit." 
 
 3. The following extracts from the Translators' Preface to the 
 Reader, mark the spirit and purpose of this undertaking : 
 
 " The adversaries... mock, as we hear, both at the work and 
 " workmen, saying... Was their translation good before? why do 
 " they now mend it ? was it not good ? why then was it obtruded 
 " to the people ? " 
 
 "... We say, we are so far from condemning any of their 
 " labours that travelled before us in this kind, either in this land,
 
 24 
 
 " or bey ond sea,... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up 
 " of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they 
 " deserve to be had of us and posterity in everlasting remembrance. 
 "... therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their names 
 " that break the ice, and give the onset upon that which helpeth 
 " forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more available 
 " thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue 
 " which they understand?... Yet for all that, as nothing is begun 
 " and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought 
 "to be the wiser : So, if we building upon their foundation thai 
 " went before its, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour 
 " to make that better ivhich they left so good ; no man, we are sure, 
 " hath cause to mislike us ; they, we, persuade ourselves if they were 
 " alive, would tliank us. The vintage of Abiezer, that stroke the 
 " stroke : yet tfie gleaning of grapes of Ephraim was not to be 
 " despised."... 
 
 " Therefore let no man's eye be evil, because his Majesty's is 
 " good ; neither let any be grieved, that we have a Prince that 
 " seeketh the increase of the spiritual wealth of Israel,... but let 
 " us rather bless God from the ground of our heart for working 
 " this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible 
 " maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it 
 " cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, (and all is sound 
 " for substance in one or other of our Editions...) the same will 
 " shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished ; also, if 
 " anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the 
 " original, the same maybe corrected, and the truth set in place."... 
 
 "... Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and 
 " objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our 
 " translation so oft ; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely 
 " with us. For to whom ever was it imputed as a fault (by such 
 " as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend 
 " it where he saw cause?"... 
 
 "... Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the 
 " beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor
 
 25 
 
 " yet to make of a bad one a good one ; . . . but to make a good one 
 " better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly 
 " to be excepted against ; that hath been our endeavour, that our 
 " mark" 
 
 From the foregoing review, it appears that by slow degrees, 
 and frequent revisions, in the lapse of centuries, the Church of 
 England obtained her present excellent Version of the Holy 
 Scriptures. Her spiritual fathers and rulers have proceeded, in 
 this respect, on the same principles which have governed all the 
 successive improvements in our Constitution and Laws; never 
 casting aside the labours of those who went before, but taking 
 their stand on the great charters of their forefathers, and en- 
 deavouring to apply and carry them out more perfectly. The two 
 great guiding principles of English legislation are, 
 
 1. Preservation of that which is good. 
 
 2. Progress towards that which is better. 
 
 Such are the principles on which it is now proposed to proceed 
 with respect to the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures, 
 after the lapse of nearly two centuries and a half. 
 
 It remains to give some account of the changes which have 
 been introduced into various Editions of the English Bible, since 
 the year 1611. 
 
 CHANGES SINCE 1611. 
 
 Whoever will take the trouble of comparing the Bibles of 
 recent date, with that of A. D. 1611, will observe several changes. 
 The chief of these are as follows : 
 
 1. The ancient forms of words have been modernized through- 
 out. 
 
 2. The words printed in Italics, to distinguish what is added 
 to the text, as required by the difference of idiom, are more nu- 
 merous in the later Editions. 
 
 It will be remembered, that complaint on this subject was 
 made by a Committee of Dissenting Ministers, in the year 1832,
 
 26 
 
 which called forth a Vindication of the University Bibles from 
 Dr Turton, now Bishop of Ely *. This learned writer entered into 
 a laborious Examination of the question, and found that the 
 greater part of these alterations as to Italics had been introduced 
 as early as 1638, in a folio Bible printed at Cambridge, that they 
 retained their place in the Oxford folio of 1688; and in the 
 Cambridge quarto of 1762. It is thus proved that they have 
 had possession of the text for two centuries. 
 
 But more important is another result of Dr Turton's investi- 
 gation. He has proved, most clearly and unanswerably, that the 
 principle upon which these alterations proceeded was the very 
 principle which the Translators of 1611 adopted, but did not 
 perfectly carry out ; viz. the principle of distinguishing such words 
 as, though necessary to the sense in the English idiom, are not 
 found in the originals. The later Editions have only endeavoured 
 to make the text of A. D. 1611, in this respect, uniformly con- 
 sistent with itself. 
 
 3. Another very important class of alterations, or rather 
 additions, is noticed by Professor Scholefield, in two of his publi- 
 cations. 
 
 Preface to Hints, &c. (1832) : "With regard to the marginal 
 " readings of our Bibles a most important kind of Commentary 
 " when no other is within reach, the Reader is to be reminded 
 " that they are not all inserted by the Translators, but many are 
 " of a much more recent date, and consequently do not possess the 
 " same authority ; few of them, however can be considered other 
 " than useful." 
 
 Preface to Greek and English Testament, 1836 : "In the 
 " marginal references, which are introduced in this Edition, the 
 " translations inclosed between brackets are those which have 
 " been added subsequently to the Edition of 1611, chiefly by Dr 
 " Blayney, in his revision published at Oxford, 1769." 
 
 The. Text of the English Bilk as now printed by the University considered, 
 &c. 2nd edition, 1833.
 
 27 
 
 It does not appear that any authority has been given for any 
 such additions to the Authorized Version, and it is therefore of 
 some importance to ascertain the facts respecting these later 
 marginal readings. 
 
 In the Library of the University Press at Cambridge, is a 
 copy of the Oxford folio Bible of 1769, a former possessor of which 
 has been at the pains to mark in the margin every variation be- 
 tween this Edition and that of 1611. It is evident, on a moment's 
 inspection, that additions have been made to the marginal readings. 
 
 In the beginning of this volume of 1769 is a note, referring to 
 a statement made by Dr Blayney, respecting this Edition, to the 
 Delegates of the Oxford University Press, and published in the 
 Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 39. This document, as possessing 
 considerable interest in connexion with our present subject is here 
 given at length : 
 
 " To the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor, and the Delegates of tlie 
 " Clarendon Press. 
 
 " The Editor of the two Editions of the Bible lately printed 
 " at the Clarendon Press thinks it his duty, now that he has com- 
 " pleted the whole in a course of between three and four years 
 " close application, to make his report to the Delegates of the 
 " manner in which that work has been executed j and hopes for 
 " their approbation. 
 
 " In the first place, according to the instructions he received, 
 "the folio edition of 1611, that of 1701, published under the 
 " direction of Bishop Lloyd, and two Cambridge editions of a late 
 " date, one in quarto, the other in octavo, have been carefully 
 " collated, whereby many errors that were found in former editions 
 " have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard 
 " of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any 
 " other edition hitherto extant. 
 
 " The punctuation has been carefully attended to, not only 
 " with a view to preserve the true sense, but also to uniformity, 
 " as far as was possible.
 
 28 
 
 " Frequent recourse has been had to the Hebrew and Greek 
 " Originals j and, as on other occasions, so with a special regard 
 " to the words not expressed in the Original Language, but which 
 " our Translators have thought fit to insert in Italics, in order to 
 " make out the sense after the English idiom, or to preserve the 
 " connexion. And though Dr Paris made large corrections in this 
 " particular in an edition published at Cambridge, there still re- 
 " inained many necessary alterations, which escaped the Doctor's 
 " notice ; in making which the Editor chose not to rely on his 
 " own judgment singly, but submitted them all to the previous 
 " examination of the Select Committee, and particularly of the 
 " Principal of Hertford College, and Mr Professor Wheeler. A 
 " list of the above alterations was intended to have been given 
 " in to the Vice-Chancellor at this time, but the Editor has not 
 " yet found time to make it completely out. 
 
 " Considerable alterations have been made in the Heads or 
 " Contents prefixed to the chapters, as will appear on inspection ; 
 " and though the Editor is unwilling to enlarge upon the labour 
 " bestowed by himself in this particular, he cannot avoid taking 
 " notice of the peculiar obligations, which both himself and the 
 " public lie under to the Principal of Hertford College, Mr Griffith 
 " of Pembroke College, Mr Wheeler, Poetry Professor, and the 
 " late Warden of New College, so long as he lived to bear a part 
 " in it : who with a prodigious expence of time, and inexpressible 
 " fatigue to themselves, judiciously corrected and improved the 
 " rude and imperfect draughts of the Editor. 
 
 " The running titles at the top of the columns in each page, 
 " how trifling a circumstance soever it may appear, required no 
 " small degree of thought and attention. 
 
 ' Many of the proper names being left untranslated, whose 
 " etymology was necessary to be known, in order to a more per- 
 " feet comprehension of the allusions in the text, the translation 
 " of them, under the inspection of the above-named Committee, 
 "has been for the benefit of the xinlearned supplied in the 
 " margin.
 
 29 
 
 " Some obvious and material errors in the chronology have 
 " been considered and rectified. 
 
 " The marginal references, even in Bishop Lloyd's Bible, had 
 " in many places suffered by the inaccuracy of the press ; subse- 
 " quent editions had copied those errata, and added many others 
 " of their own ; so that it became absolutely necessary to turn to 
 " and compare the several passages ; which has been done in every 
 " single instance, and by this precaution several false references 
 " brought to light, which would otherwise have passed unsus- 
 " pected. It has been the care of the Editor to rectify these, as 
 " far as he could, by critical conjecture, where the copies univer- 
 " sally failed him, as they did in most of the errors discovered in 
 " Bishop Lloyd's edition. In some few instances he confesses 
 " himself to have been at a loss in finding out the true reference, 
 " though the cormption was manifest in the want of any the most 
 " distant resemblance between the passages compared together. 
 " Cases of this sort, indeed, did not often occur ; so that a very 
 " small number only of the old references are, with the sanction 
 " of the Committee, omitted, and their places more usefully sup- 
 " plied. 
 
 " It had been suggested by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 " that an improvement might be made in the present editions of 
 " the Bible, by taking in a number of additional references, of 
 " which many useful ones, as he supposed, might be furnished 
 " from other editions referred to by him, and particularly from a 
 " Scotch edition, of which the present Vice-Chancellor was kind 
 " enough to lend a copy. The references found in it, which were, 
 " indeed, very numerous, having been severally turned to and 
 " examined, such of them were selected as the Editor judged most 
 " pertinent, together with others that occurred from his own read- 
 " ing and observation. In doing this he has endeavoured to keep 
 " clear of mere fanciful allusions, of which too many presented 
 " themselves in the before-named Scotch edition ; and to adhere 
 " as near as possible to the plan marked out in the former collec- 
 " tion made by Bishop Lloyd ; pointing out such passages chiefly,
 
 30 
 
 " where the same histoiy or the same name were introduced, the 
 " same matter treated of, or sentiment expressed, or at least where 
 " parallels might fairly be drawn ; and sometimes where a similar 
 " use of a particular word or expression tended to illustrate the 
 " application of it, on another occasion. The number of refer- 
 " ences being thus augmented considerably, the collection upon 
 " the whole will, it is hoped, be regarded as useful in the light 
 " of a Concordance, material as well as verbal, always at 
 " hand. 
 
 " In this state the quarto copy was sent to press ; and the first 
 " proofs carefully collated with the copy, both text and margin ; 
 " after which the second proofs were again read, and generally 
 " speaking, the third likewise ; not to mention the frequent revi- 
 " sions of proofs besides, which are common in correcting the press. 
 " This proved, indeed, a very tiresome and tedious task : but was 
 " not more than was absolutely necessary in order to attain the 
 " degree of accuracy that was wished. A particular attention was 
 " required with respect to the figures belonging to the marginal 
 " references, where errors were continually creeping in after a 
 " manner that would appear highly astonishing to those, who have 
 " never been concerned in correcting multitudes of figures, as they 
 " came from the press. 
 
 " When the quarto sheets were printed off, the forms were 
 " lengthened out in order to make up the folio edition ; in doing 
 " which the parts were often so jumbled together, and such con- 
 " fusion introduced by misplacing the references, and mistaking 
 " the chronology, that nothing else would suffice than a fresh colla- 
 " tion of the whole with the quarto copy, and a repetition of almost 
 " the same troxible and care in the revisal, and in making up the 
 " running titles anew, as had been used before. But the Editor 
 " thinks he has just reason to congratulate himself on the oppor- 
 " tunity hereby given him of discovering and correcting some 
 " few trivial inaccuracies, which, in spite of all his vigilance, had 
 " escaped his notice in the quarto edition. So that the folio 
 " edition is rendered by this somewhat the more perfect of the
 
 31 
 
 " two, and therefore more fit to be recommended for a standard 
 copy. 
 
 " The Editor humbly hopes this account of his proceedings 
 " will not be unacceptable to the Board ; and will think his time 
 " and pains not ill bestowed, if he shall have succeeded in his 
 " desire of giving satisfaction to those who honoured him with the 
 " employment, and of contributing in any wise to God's honour, 
 " and the public utility. 
 
 " B. BLAYNEY. 
 
 " Hertford College, Oct. 25, 1769." 
 
 It will be observed, that in this enumeration of the variations 
 introduced in the Edition of 1769, Dr Blayney says no word of 
 new marginal HEADINGS. The presumption therefore is, that they 
 were introduced at an earlier period, and retained by him. 
 
 Dr Blayney refers to a previous Oxford Edition of 1701, 
 under the care of Bishop Lloyd, and I have examined this and 
 another Bible of 1701, with reference to two marginal readings of 
 some importance, which are not found in the Bible of 1611. 
 
 (1) Matthew xxviii. 19 : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
 nations." 
 
 1611. No marginal reading. 
 
 1701. Oxford. || or, make disciples in all nations. 
 1701. London. || or, make disciples, or Christians of all 
 nations *. 
 
 (2) 2 Pet. i. 1 : " Through the righteousness of God and our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 1611. No marginal reading. 
 
 1701. Oxford, t Gr. of 'our God and Saviour. 
 
 1701. London, t Gr. of 'our God and Saviour*. 
 It is thus clear that some additions, at least, had been made 
 before Dr Blayney's time ; and, since he says nothing of any new 
 marginal readings introduced by himself, while he mentions changes 
 
 * Neither of these new marginal readings is found in the Cambridge edition 
 of 1638.
 
 32 
 
 of lesser moment, it may be presumed that he only retained those 
 which he found in previous editions. 
 
 To ascertain the whole truth on this point, by whom and at 
 what periods (probably between 1638 and 1701) the various ad- 
 ditions were made, would require more labour than I can now 
 afford, as it is not necessary to my present purpose. The fact is 
 sufficiently clear that several important additions have been made 
 to the marginal readings of 1611 ; some with the note "tHeb." 
 or " t Gr." expressing the more literal sense of the original ; others 
 with the note " || or," giving what the Editors deemed a better 
 rendering. 
 
 And this fact is one material element in the question of 
 Revision, inasmuch as these later marginal readings do not rest 
 on the authority of the Translators of 1611, nor, so far as at present 
 appears, on any authority but that of the Editors employed by the 
 Universities and the King's Printers, sanctioned, perhaps with 
 justice, by the tacit approval of the Church for more than a century 
 and a half. 
 
 Further, it should be borne in mind, that these additions to 
 the marginal readings have been introdiiced, without causing any 
 unsettlement of the public mind with respect to the general fidelity 
 of the Authorized "Version. The reader is requested to remember 
 this, when considering the proposition made above (p. 10), that cor- 
 rections approved by competent authority should be printed either 
 at the end of the Bible or in the margin, with a view to their ulti- 
 mate reception into the text. 
 
 REMARKS ON OBJECTIONS TO REVISION. 
 
 After what has been above stated it can hardly be deemed 
 necessary to say much in answer to the two objections which 
 are usually made to all proposals for revision. 
 
 1st, That the present Authorized Version is so faithful to 
 the original, and so excellent in its language, as to leave little 
 room for improvement.
 
 33 
 
 2nd, That there is great danger of unsettling the public 
 mind, and casting doubt upon the fidelity of the Authorized 
 Version, by the appointment of a Commission to revise it. 
 
 It may, however, be well to add a few remarks by way of 
 recapitulation. 
 
 On the first objection, let the words of Bishop Fisher be 
 remembered : " in this large field .of the /Scriptures a man may 
 " gather some ears untouched after the harvest-men, how diligent 
 " soever they were." 
 
 That the translators of 1611 have left such ears as are well 
 worth the pains of gleaning, may be safely inferred from the 
 fact of so many attempts having been made to render the 
 Authorized Version more perfect. During the last two centuries 
 almost every book of the Bible has been published in a new 
 Version, or with notes proposing amendments of the text ; many 
 books have undergone the same process more than once. And 
 now, in our own time, we see the work of revising the whole 
 version undertaken simultaneously in two opposite quarters. 
 
 Again, many of our most learned men, Bishops and Profes- 
 sors, while they confirm the universal award of commendation 
 to the substance and body of the Authorized Version, at the 
 same time express their sense of the necessity of occasional 
 corrections. The late Lady Margaret's Professor at Cambridge, 
 Bishop Marsh, may be safely taken as the exponent of this 
 prevalent feeling among our learned men. 
 
 "As this collation was made by some of the most distin- 
 " guished scholars in the age of James I., it is probable that 
 " our Authorized Version is as faithful a representation of the 
 " original Scriptures as could have been formed at that period. 
 " But when we consider the immense accession which has been 
 " since made, both to our critical and philological apparatus ; 
 " when we consider that the whole mass of literature, commencing 
 " with the London Polyglot, and continued to Griesbach's Greek 
 " Testament, was collected subsequently to that period ; when we 
 " consider that the most important sources of intelligence for the 
 
 3
 
 34 
 
 " interpretation of the original Scriptures were likewise opened 
 " after that period, we cannot possibly pretend that our Authorized 
 " Version does not require amendment." 
 
 This argument in favour of revision is materially strengthened 
 by the judgment of another eminent Cambridge scholar, Professor 
 Scholefield, whose early departure was the occasion of my first 
 entering upon this subject, and in whose steps I rejoice to follow, 
 with the grateful remembrance of former studies under his 
 guidance. Feeling, as he did, the deepest reverence for the 
 translators of 1611, it was his earnest desire "to assist in re- 
 " moving from their glorious work its few human blemishes ; 
 " to attempt something towards carrying a little nearer to perfection 
 " a work which is already so near it" 
 
 Some estimate of the golden ears, which yet remain for the 
 gleaners, may be formed from Prof. Scholefield's Hints. In his 
 little volume the proposed amendments in the English Version 
 of the New Testament amount to more than^we hundred. Some 
 of them, as above noticed, are restorations of earlier renderings ; 
 some gathered from the works of critics who preceded him; and 
 some the fruits of his own study. 
 
 It would be rash to say that all his corrections are worthy of 
 approval ; each of them forms a question to be submitted to an 
 authorized body of revisers ; but the very fact of such a number of 
 emendations proposed by so eminent a scholar, (who has yet left 
 something for after-gleaners,) added to the consideration, that 
 some of them touch on questions of the gravest doctrinal import- 
 ance, is a most material argument for an a\ithoritative revision. 
 
 We have no such definite data for estimating the probable 
 number of corrections required in the Version of the ancient 
 Scriptures; but when we take into account the relative magni- 
 tude of the two Testaments, we can scarcely be wrong in pre- 
 suming that the number of amendments requisite in the Old is 
 at least equal to the number suggested in the New Testament. 
 
 Having compared throughout the Authorized Version, both 
 of the Old and New Testaments, with the originals, I do not
 
 35 
 
 hesitate to avow my firm persuasion that there are at least one 
 tluwsand passages of the English Bible that might be amended 
 without any change in the general texture and justly-reverenced 
 language of the Version. 
 
 Now, even if this estimate should be found too high; even 
 if it should be reduced by the labours of a learned body of Com- 
 missioners to one-tenth, who shall say that an hundred proved and 
 acknowledged errors in the English Version are not of sufficient 
 importance to justify the undertaking of an Authorized Revision ? 
 
 Further, if it be found, as we may safely affirm it will be 
 found, that several of these defective passages do at present ob- 
 scure, more or less, the testimony borne to CHRIST by the Prophets, 
 and the assertions of the Divinity of CHKIST by the Apostles, may 
 we not say that it is our bounden duty to effect the removal of 
 these blemishes ? 
 
 Who shall say that the golden rule of the Gospel, which, with 
 respect to personal holiness, and the knowledge of CHRIST, bids us 
 "lay aside every weight" and "go on unto perfection," does not 
 extend to our care for the purity of the Word of GOD, and bind 
 us to render every version of the sacred original as perfect as 
 possible 1 
 
 What are the arguments to maintain the proposition, that our 
 present Version is as good as can be desired ; that having been 
 carried thus far on the road to perfect accuracy, by the successive 
 labours of our forefathers, down to 1611, we may safely rest there, 
 and consecrate for ever, by the silent sanction of our Church, the 
 last remaining hundred errors ? 
 
 Who is there that must not grieve, amid the joy which attends 
 the diffusion of the Sacred Word throughout the world, to see 
 these errors perpetuated and disseminated in an hundred and fifty 
 different tongues ; to hear (as I have heard) the translators em- 
 ployed upon these Versions express their sorrow that no way is 
 open for amendment? " I am sure that the correction is right, 
 " but my instructions compel me to adhere to the Authorized 
 " Version."
 
 36 
 
 Surely if we still continue to rest contented with acknowledged 
 imperfections, after all the calls made upon us, we have no right 
 to say that we are following the example of our forefathers ; 
 they did not stereotype their Bible once for all generations, but 
 amended it from time to time, in such measure as was found 
 necessary and practicable. 
 
 Under this head I will only notice one other argument, which 
 may possibly be employed to prove the work of revision unneces- 
 sary. It is this : " In the time of our Lord there were many 
 " errors in the Septuagint Version ; there were defects even in the 
 " Hebrew Text itself; yet He took no pains to make the written 
 " Word of God more perfect. Hence it may be concluded that 
 " if the essential Truths of Revelation be clearly delivered, and no 
 " main article of faith imperilled by existing errors, it is better 
 " to rest where we are." 
 
 This appeal to the example of our LORD, however specious at 
 first sight as against revision, will be found on examination, with 
 reference to times and seasons, to strengthen our cause. 
 
 For (merely observing by the way, that we really know very 
 little of what passed at those times when JESUS "sat daily teaching 
 in the temple," and that we do know that " He spake as one 
 having authority, and not as the scribes"} consider what the work 
 of our LORD was, with respect to teaching. It was, to present to 
 the minds of men the broad lines and features of Divine Truth ; not 
 to make perfect the letter, but to open the spirit of the Scriptures ; 
 to convince the people, by the agreement of His life and works 
 with the witness of the Law and the Prophets, that He was indeed 
 the Saviour promised from the beginning, the CHRIST of GOD. 
 
 For this the Scriptures, as they then existed, were fully suf- 
 ficient ; He could say with truth, " They have Moses and the Pro- 
 phets," notwithstanding occasional imperfections in the text ; there 
 was enough in the Hebrew Scriptures, and even in the Septuagint 
 Version, to declare the truth to humble and teachable minds. 
 
 We may therefore conclude that this first age of the Gospel 
 was not the most fitting time for that minute correction of
 
 37 
 
 particular passages, which was needful to render perfect the letter 
 of the Scriptures. 
 
 But how can any argument drawn from this time be applied 
 to discountenance the work of searching diligently the Sacred 
 Text, and of revising our own Version in the present day 1 
 
 May we not say that our Lord, intent Himself on things still 
 greater and more pressing, bequeathed this task to His Church of 
 after ages ? that this is one of those works for which He poured 
 forth the Holy Ghost, to teach us all things, and to guide us into 
 the whole truth 1 May we not say that our Lord knew well the 
 time would come, when His Gospel being firmly planted in the 
 hearts of men, His Church securely established upon earth, and a 
 body of men solemnly devoted to " the reading of the Holy Scrip- 
 " tures, and such studies as help to the knowledge of the same," 
 this work of presenting His Word to the world in its most perfect 
 and genuine form, would be diligently taken in hand ? that with 
 a zeal surpassing that of classical criticism, men would labour to 
 purify the copies of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures from the 
 casual errors of transcription, and other defects induced in the 
 lapse of ages 1 rejoicing (as one of the old critics expresses his 
 feeling) more for the restoration of one lost word, in the Sacred 
 Books, than in fifty emendations of Greek or Roman authors* ; 
 and that each particular Church would give its best diligence, 
 from time to time, to deliver to the people, in their own 
 tongue, the purest and most perfect interpretation of the Word 
 of God ? 
 
 This is the principle on which the Church of England has 
 acted hitherto, and this it is now proposed once more to put 
 in practice, in the narrowed field of correction left to us by the 
 Translators of 1611. 
 
 So far from implying thereby any disparagement of their la- 
 bours, it is but following their example ; and we may say of them, 
 
 * Scripturam sacram eo prosequor honore, \\t longk faciam pluris unum hie, 
 etiam minimum, suse integritati locum restituisse, quam Ciceronis, Virgilii, aut 
 cujuscunque alterius hujus ordinis quinquaginta. LUCAS BRUGENSIS. 
 
 33
 
 38 
 
 as they said of their precursors, the editors of the Bishops' Bible, 
 " If we buildinw upon their foundation that went before us, and 
 " being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better 
 " which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mis- 
 " like us ; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would 
 " thank us." 
 
 2. With respect to the second objection, that there is great 
 danger of unsettling the public mind, by the appointment of a 
 Commission to revise the English Bible, we may say at once, This 
 objection comes too late. 
 
 As has been shewn above, the public mind is already at work 
 upon the subject ; revisions in various forms are commenced and 
 circulated : one can scarcely take up a journal of the day without 
 finding an article or a letter on " Biblical Revision." The public 
 mind is already moved, whether the movement be for good or evil ; 
 and the only consideration open to us is this, What is the best 
 way of restoring tranquillity ? 
 
 Motos prcestat componere fluctus. 
 
 That this movement is for good, I cannot for a moment doubt. 
 It is the offspring of that spirit of improvement in all our insti- 
 tutions, which distinguishes the present century in comparison 
 with the last. The same feeling which moved us to restore and 
 make comely our cathedral and parish-churches, now moves us to 
 desire and promote the improvement of our Version of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Let us consider calmly what are the results that may be rea- 
 sonably expected from an Authorized Revision, that we may judge 
 in some measure whether good or evil is likely to predominate. 
 
 First, we may boldly predict that an Authorized Revision 
 will lead to the re-establishment of public confidence (if indeed 
 it has been shaken) in the general fidelity and substantial 
 goodness of our Version. All our best scholars are agreed in 
 this, that the English Translation is one of the most faithful,
 
 39 
 
 both to the letter and to the spirit of the original, that the world 
 has ever seen. 
 
 If then the public mind has been at all unsettled ; if the desire 
 for correction of particular passages has led to the feeling that 
 a New Translation is required; there is no way by which this 
 feeling can be so completely set at rest, as by the labours of a 
 body of learned men commissioned to revise the whole Version. 
 Under their hands the pillars and arches, the walls and but- 
 tresses of the sacred fabric, will remain the same as at present, 
 while the joints are pointed, and the blemishes removed. 
 
 This result will be similar to that which followed the 
 laborious examination of Hebrew manuscripts by Dr Kennicott 
 and his associates. A vague feeling had gone abroad, arising 
 from the rumours of a multitude of various readings in those 
 manuscripts, that the text was in a very uncertain state. The 
 result of the collation proved that the greater part of the various 
 readings were of small importance, making no difference in the 
 sense, and that the general text of the Hebrew Scriptures was 
 most securely established. 
 
 Secondly, we may hope that several passages now left in a 
 dubious state will be effectually cleared. 
 
 It is not sufficiently remembered that the translators of 
 1611 have, in many places, purposely left our minds unsettled, 
 because their own minds were so. Where they did not feel that 
 they had sufficient reason for adopting one rendering, to the 
 exclusion of another, they have given both, one in the text, 
 the other in the margin. It may reasonably be expected that 
 the labours of Biblical critics, since 1611, will enable the revisers 
 to arrive at a just decision in some of these doubtful cases. 
 
 There is another more important class of double renderings, in 
 text and margin, of which I will speak hereafter. 
 
 Thirdly, we may say with full assurance, that many renderings, 
 more or less erroneous, will be amended. 
 
 These amendments will be of various shades of importance, 
 and effected by various means. Sometimes a mere change of
 
 40 
 
 punctuation, or the change from affirmative to interrogative, 
 will bring a passage into accordance with the original : sometimes 
 (as in the case quoted in p. 8) a very little further change 
 will restore a gracious declaration, lost in the present English ; 
 sometimes a phrase, which in 1611 was in accordance with the 
 original, but is so no longer, except to the ears of a few scholars, 
 will require to be altered : and in some cases, where the trans- 
 lators have missed the true sense, the correct rendering must be 
 brought forth from the treasures of modern criticism. 
 
 None of these emendations will be without some value, 
 both to ministers and people. 
 
 It is a painful thing for a minister to be obliged, year after 
 year, to read to his flock that which he is convinced is not the 
 genuine word of Scripture. It is scarcely less painful, to some 
 minds even more so, to put forth from the pulpit corrections 
 of the Authorized Version. Among the reasons urged, or rather 
 mentioned, during the late discussion in Parliament, against the 
 necessity of a revision, it was said that ministers had the 
 opportunity of stating the true sense of the original in their 
 discourses. Can anything be more unsettling to the public mind 
 than this state of things continuing year after year, without 
 a step towards final adjustment 1 ? Even supposing the minister 
 to be right in his interpretations, can we safely rest in a position 
 where error is authorized and printed, correction unauthorized 
 and oral ? But if, as must often happen, the minister be wrong ; 
 if he be swayed in favour of his correction by five reasons (as 
 is told of one preacher soon after 1611), while ignorant or 
 unmindful of the thirteen still more powerful reasons which 
 moved the translators to adopt their rendering ; what a field 
 of vacillation and error is thus left open ! 
 
 Surely every step which tends to diminish these evils, every 
 emendation, well considered and publicly sanctioned, which helps 
 to naiTow the field of individual correction, will be a boon to 
 all the members of our Church. 
 
 Nor will the benefit of each emendation be confined to the 
 word or phrase actually corrected, but the whole context will
 
 41 
 
 regain its true light and force. A defect in language, like a 
 faulty stone in a building, inflicts injury on all adjoining. The 
 harmony of parts is marred, and strength is lost. It is not 
 therefore just, to estimate the value of revision merely by counting 
 up the number of probable corrections ; the whole English Bible 
 will gain by it. To quote once more the words of the translators 
 of 1611, in their Preface : "By this means it will come to pass, 
 " that whatsoever is sound already, the same will shine as gold 
 " more brightly, being rubbed and polished" 
 
 FourtMy, I have alluded above to one particular class of pas- 
 sages, in which the Authorized Version leaves us in doubt ; and 
 have reserved these to the last, not because such passages are more 
 important than others in their bearing on Divine Truth, but 
 because they present more difliculty in the process of correction. 
 The reader of the Authorized Version will have remarked that 
 the double renderings (text and margin) do not always express 
 the doubt of the translators as to the correctness of the trans- 
 lation, but sometimes "an existing doubtfulness of reading in the 
 original text" In such passages the English Version is a faithful 
 reflex of the Hebrew copies, which contain one reading in the 
 text, the alternative in the margin *. 
 
 In some of these cases, and in some others also, where by 
 wrong division or junction of words, by the addition, omission, 
 or change of a letter, the text has become faulty, it is to be hoped 
 that the ampler means now at hand for investigating the truth, 
 and the critical labours of our own and foreign scholars since 
 1611, will enable the revisers to point out, with sufficient warrant 
 of evidence, the genuine readings, and to place in the Authorized 
 Version the corresponding English words. 
 
 This will be another result of no small value ; for though the 
 cases in which such restoration may be practicable, are not 
 perhaps very numerous, yet some of them stand in connexion 
 with important passages in the Law and the Prophets, which 
 
 * e.g. Isaiah ix. 3. See also i Peter i. 4, ii. 21. In these latter cases the 
 text and margin represent the readings of different MSS.
 
 42 
 
 are now obscured by faulty readings. And hence also will arise 
 a further proof of the genuineness of the Hebrew Scriptures : 
 when a word long lost to the sacred text, is at length restored, 
 and found to fit into its place as no other word can, giving and 
 receiving light on all sides ; this very correspondence affords the 
 same thrilling evidence as would be given by the discovery in 
 the acropolis of Athens of a hand or foot, exactly fitting to and 
 completing some well-known ancient statue. 
 
 I will only mention one more good result to be hoped for 
 from the undertaking of an Authorized Revision. It is the 
 quickening impulse tliat will be given to sacred studies both in 
 criticism and interpretation. The lonely student of the sacred 
 originals, and the village pastor labouring to draw forth the 
 pure water of life for his flock, will feel the kindling of a 
 livelier zeal in all their labours, when they know that there is an 
 Authorized Council by whom every suggestion will be duly 
 weighed, and that all which is truly good will become the patri- 
 mony of the Church. 
 
 I had intended to notice some of the possible dangers 
 attendant on the proposed revision ; but when I think of them 
 they seem to sink into nothing before the sacred obligation, to 
 do for posterity what our forefathers did for us, to hand down 
 the "Word of God in the purest and most perfect form that is 
 attainable at the present day. Let us be no longer deterred from 
 this good work by vague fears of unknown difficulties : they 
 cannot be so great now as they were in 1611. passi graviora 
 dabit Deus his quoque finem. The providence of God and the 
 Spirit of God will guide us through all difficulties. 
 
 Neither let us give way to the ungrounded fear that the 
 reverence and love of the people for the English Bible as a 
 whole, will be weakened by the correction of some defective 
 renderings; their reverence and love rest on a far wider and 
 deeper basis. 
 
 Still less to be indulged is the feeling which would bid us 
 sit still, and do nothing, because the present Authorized Version,
 
 A 000130489 8 
 
 whatever be its defects, has been conseuauju oy the veneration of 
 two hundred and fifty years. Our fathers have not venerated the 
 errors and defects of the Version ; they have stumbled at them, 
 have suffered loss by them, have passed by them perplexed and 
 unedified : but they have venerated the English Bible, because 
 in spite of all errors and defects, it spoke to them the Word 
 of God with authority and with power. 
 
 There is a Future, as well as a Past, to be thought of; and it 
 may be that the children of a thousand years to come will bless 
 us for having set on foot the work of revision, and venerate 
 more and more, as it advances towards perfection, the AUTHORIZED 
 VERSION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 ST LEONABD'S-ON-SEA, 
 August 27, 1856.
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSIT