4. A correspondence between Herbert Marsh, bish- op of Peterborough, and the Rev. H.Walter, in 1828, is tlic next link in the chain. Marsh had spoken {Lec- tures nn Biblical Criticism, p. 295) with some contempt of tlic A.V. as based on Tyndale's, Tyndale's on Lu- ther's, and Luther's on Minister's lexicon, which was itself based on the Vulgate. Tliere was. therefore, on thir. view, no real translation from the Hebrew in any one of these. But it is evident that tlic Christian He- braists of the period of tlie Keformation depended quite as much on the tra<litional learning of their Jew- ish teachers, often erroneous imlecd, as on the earlier tradition preserved in the Latin Vulgate, and that tiiey followed, as far as thej' were able, the Masoretic
punctuation, a much surer guide than the ancient ver« sions, or the later rabbinic interpretation.
5. The last five-and-twenty years have seen the question of a revision from time to time gaining fresh prominence. If men of second-rate power have some- times thrown it back b}' meddling with it in wrong ways, others, able scholars and sound tlieologians, have admitted its necessity and helped it forward by their work. Dr. Conquest's Bible, with " 20, COO emen- dations" (1841), has not commanded the respect of critics, and is almost self-condemned by the silly os- tentation of its title. The motions which have from time to time been made in the House of Commons by Mr. Heywood have borne little fruit beyond the dis- play of feeble liberalism, and yet feebler conservatism, by which such debates are, for the most part, charac- terized ; nor have the discussions in Convocation, though opened by a scholar of high repute (professor Selwyn), been much more productive. Dr. Beard's essay, A revised Enf/lish Bible the Want of the Church (1857), though tending to overstate the defects of the A. v., is yet valuable as containing much information, and representing the opinions of the more learned Nonconformists. Far more important, every way, both as virtually an authority in favor of revision and as contributing largely to it, are professor Schole- field's Hints for an improved Translation of the N. T. (1832). In his second edition, indeed, he disclaims any wish for a new translation, but the principle which he lays down clearly and truly in his preface, that if there is "any adventitious difficulty resulting from a defective translation, then it is at the same time an act of charity and of duty to clear away the difficulty as much as possible," leads legitimately to at least a revision ; and this conclusion Mr. Selwyn, in the last edition of the Hints (1857), has deliberately adopted. To bishop Ellicott also belongs the credit of having spoken at once boldly and wisely on this matter. Putting the question whether it would be right to join those who oppose all revision, his answer is. " God for- bid. . . . It is in vain to cheat our own souls with the thought that these errors (in A. V.) are either insig- nificant or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions, there are ob- scurities . . . and that man who, after Ijeing in anj' degree satisfied of this, permits himself to loan to the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or A\ho, intellectually unable to test the truth of these allega- tions, nevertheless permits himself to denounce or den}' them, will . . . have to sustain the tremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable word of God" {Pref. to Pastoral Epistles). The trans- lations appended by Dr. Ellicott to his editions of Paul's epistles jiroceed on the true principle of alter- ing the A.V. "only where it api)ears to be incorrect, inexact, insufficient, or obscure," uniting a profound reverence for the older translators with a bold truth- fulness in judging of their work. The copious colla- tion of all the earlier English versions makes this part of his book especially interesting and valuable. Dr. Trench {On the A. ]'. of the X. T., 1858), in like man- ner, states his conviction that "a revision ought to come," though as yet, he thinks, "the Greek and the English necessary to bring it to a successful issue are alike wanting" (p. 3). The work itself, it need hard- ly be said, is the fullest contradiction possible of this somewhat despondent statement, and supplies a good store of materials for use when the revision actually comes. The Revision of the A . V. h;i fire Cieri/ynun (Dr. Barrow, Dr. Moberly, dean Alford, Mr. Humphry, and Dr. Ellicott) represents the same school of conser- vative progress, has the merit of adhering to the clear, pui'e English of the A. V., and does not deserve the censure which Dr. Beard ])asses on it as "promising little and performing less." As yet, this series in- cludes only the Gospel of John, and the epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The publications of the
ENGLISH VERSIONS
221
ENGLISH VERSIONS
American Bible Union are signs that there also the same want has been felt. Tlie translations given re- spectively bj' Alford, Stanley, Jowett, and Conybeare and Howson, in their respective commentaries, are in like manner at once admissions of the necessity of the work and contributions towards it. Mr. Sharpe (1810) and Mr. Highton (18G2) have ventured on the wider work of translations of the entire N. T. Mr. Sawyer (1858) has done the same, and proposes to continue the task over the whole Bible ; but he lacks both the scholarship and the judgment necessary. Mr. Cookes- le}!- has published the Gospel of Matthew as Part I of a like undertaking. It might almost seem as if at last there was something like a consensus of scholars and divines on this question. That assumption would, however, be too hasty. Partly the vis inertice, which, in a large body like the clergy of the Church, is al- waj's great, partly the fear of ulterior consequences, partly also the indifference of the majority of the laity, would probably, at the present moment, give at least a numerical majority to the opponents of a revision. Writers on this side are naturally less numerous, but the feeling of conservatism, pure and simple, has found utterance in four men representing different sections, and of different calibre — Mr. Scrivener {Supp. to A. Eiig. Ver. of N. T.), Dr. M'Caul (^Reasons Jar holding fast the Authorized English Version}, Mr. C. S. Malan (.4 Vindication, etc.), and Dr. Gumming (^Revision and Translation). A high American authority, Mr. Geo. P. Marsh, maj' also be referred to as throwing the weight of his judgment into the scale against any re- vision at the present moment (Lectures on the English Language, lect. xxviii).