2. Biblical revision was happily not left entire!}' in such hands as these. A translation by Worsley "ac- cording to the present idiom of the English tongue" (1770) was, at least, less offensive. Durell {Pi-eface to Joh), Lowth {Pref to Jsaiali), Blayney {Pref. to Jere- miah, 1784), were all strongly in favor of a new or re- vised translation. Durell dwells most on the arbitra- ry additions and omissions in the A.V. of Job, on the total al)sence in some cases of any intelligible mean- ing. Lowth speaks chiefly of the faulty state of the text of the 0. T., and urges a correction of it, partly from various readings, partly from ancient versions, partly from conjecture. Each of the three contributed, in the best way, to the work which they had little ex- pect ition of seeing accomplished, by laboring stcadil}'' at a single book, and committing it to the judgment of the Church. Kennicott's labors in collecting MSS, of the O. T. issued in Lis State of the pressnt llehreio Text (1753-59), and excited expectations that tliero might before long be something like a basis for a new version in a restored original.
A more ambitious scheme was started by the Roman Catholic Dr. Geddes, in his Prospectus for a New Trans- lation (1786). His remarks on the history of English translations, his candid acknowledgmqnt of the excel- lences of the A.V., and especially of Tyndale's work as pervading it, his critical notes on the true principles of translation, on the A.V. as falling short of them, may still be read with interest. He too, like Lowth, finds fault with the superstitious adherence to the Ma- soretic text, with the undue deference to lexicons, and disregard of versions shown by our translators. The proposal was well received by many Biblical scholars, Lowth, Kennicott, and Barrington being foremost among its patrons. Tlie work was issued in parts, ac- cording to the terms of the Prospectus, but did not ge* further than 2 Chron. in 1792, Avhen tlie death of the translator put a stop to it. Partly, perhaps, owing to its incompleteness, but still more from the extreme boldness of a Preface, anticipating the conclusions of a later criticism, Dr. Geddes's translation fell rapid!}' into disfavor. A sermon liy White (famous for his Bampton Lectures) in 1779, and two pamphlets by J. A. Symonds, professor of modern history at Cam- bridge— the first on the Gospels and the Acts, in 1789 ; the second on tlie Epistles, in 1791 — though attacked in an Apolorjij for the Litwrjij and Church of Enc/land (1795), helpad to keep the discn^sion from oblivion.
3. The revision of the A. V., like many other salu- tary reforms, w.is hindered liy the French Revolution, In 1792, archbishop Newcome had published an elabo- rate defence of such a scheme, citing a host of author- ities (Doddridge, Wesley, Campbell, in addition to those already mentioned), and taking the same line as Lowtht
ENGLISH VERSIONS
220
ENGLISH VERSIONS
■Revised translations of the N. T. were published bj' W'ai^etield in 17'Jo, by Newcomc himself in 179G, bj^ Scarlett in 179.S. Canii)l)eirs version of the Gospels appeared in 17.S8, that of the Epistles bj' Macknight in 17'J5. But in 17'Jfi tlie note of alarm was sounded. A feelde pamiihlct by Cieorge Bury;es {LHter to the Lord Bishcrp of f.Iy) took the groinid that "the present pe- riod was unfit," and from that time conservatism, pure and sini]ik>, was in the ascendant. To suggest that the A.V. might be inaccurate was almost as bad as holding " Frcncii i^rinciples." Tliere is a long inter- val before the question again comes into anything like prominence, and then tliere is a new school of critics in the Quarterli/ Renew and elsewhere, read_y to do bat- tle vigorously for things as they are. The opening of tlie next campaign was an article in the Classical Journal (No. 3(!), b}' Dr. John Bellamy, proposing a new translation, followed soon afterwards by its publi- cation under the patronage of the prince regent (1818). The work was poor and unsatisfactory enough, and a tremendous battery was opened upon it in the Quai-- terhj Review (Nos. 37 and 38), as afterwards (No. 46) upon an unhappy critic, Sir J. B. Burges, who came forward with a pamphlet in its defence {Reasons infa- ror of a new Transl'ifion, 1819). The rash assertion of both Bellamy and Burges that the A.V. had been made almost entirely from the Septuagint and Vul- gate, and a general deficiency in all accurate scholar- ship, made them easy victims. The personal element of this controversy maj' well be passed over, but three less epliemeral works issued from it, which any future laborer in the same held will find worth consulting. 'Whitaker's Hisfoncal and Critical Inquiry was chiefly an able exposure of the exaggerated statement just mentioned. H. J. Todd, in his Vindication of the Au- thorized Ti-anslatioH (1819), entered more fully than any previous writer had done into the histor)' of the A.V., and gives manj^ facts as to the lives and qualifi- cations of the translators not easilj' to be met with elsewhere. The most masterly, however, of the man- ifestoes against all change was a pamphlet (Remarks on the Ci ideal Principles, etc., Oxford, 1820), published anonymous!}', but known to have been written by archl)ishop Laurence. The strength of the argument lies cliietly in a skilful display of all the difficidties of tlie work, the impossibility of any satisfactory restora- tion of the Hebrew of the 0. T., or any settlement of the Greek of the N. T. ; the expediency, therefore, of adhering to a Textus receptus in both. See Variocs Readings. Tlie argument, if conclusive, would un- settle our confidence in ths text of the Holy Scrip- tures. Happily, more thorough critical research lias fully refuted the archbishop's positions. But the scholarship and acuteness witli which the subject is treated make the book instructive, and any one enter- ing on the work of a translator ought at least to read it, tiiat he may know what difficulties ho has to face. About this period, also (1819), a new edition of New- come's version was published liy Belsham and other Unitarian ministers, and, like Bellamy's attempt on the (). T., had the effect of stiffening the resistance of tlie great iiody of the clergy to all proposals for a re- vision.