Even Selden, however, accorded to the King's translation only modified praise. He admitted it to be the best translation in the world, as rendering "the sense of the original best," but he complained of its un-English phrases which were much ridiculed by the common people.
In little more than thirty years after its first issue, a serious proposal was made for a revision of the national Bible. It was urged on Parliament in 1645. A distinguished member of the Westminster Assembly, in the course of a sermon preached that year before the House of Commons, entreated his hearers "to think of a review and survey of the translation of the Bible"; so that, by a revised translation, "exact, vigorous, and lively," the people of the three kingdoms might come to know the proper and genuine sense of the Scriptures. It is clear, therefore, that some of the Westminster divines did not suppose that the King's translation would continue for ever to be the only Bible appointed to be read in Churches. And so, in their directory for public worship, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645, it is said, under the heading of public reading of the Scriptures :— "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation."
A bill was actually brought into the long Parliament, shortly before its dissolution in 1653, to appoint a committee to review and revise the "new translation," as the King's or authorised version was then termed. It was alleged that that translation had been "wronged by the prelates, or printers, or others"; and it was proposed that all the injuries so done to that translation, in malice or in ignorance, should be repaired by this committee, "before there be any further printing of the Bible." It was further alleged to be a common stumblingblock to the weak, and a subject of cavil for scoffers, that, in sermons preached and printed, people heard or found it said, "the original bears it better thus and thus." It was accordingly proposed that the committee appointed by Parliament should carefully consider all translations, annotations, and marginal readings that they knew of; and give their approbation to what, "after seriously looking up to the Lord for his gracious assistance in so weighty a work, and advising together amongst themselves, they should judge to be nearest to the text, and to the mind of the Lord." And that there might be security against the hasty adoption, and unadvised insertion, of fanciful and unfaithful renderings in the English Bible, it was proposed that another committee of three divines should be "appointed and authorised to be supervisors of what is so approved, and that what those (supervisors) should so approve, should be printed and published for the general edification and benefit of the whole nation, to be read both privately and in the public congregations."
The sudden dissolution of the long Parliament put an end to this scheme. It is evident, however, that the scheme was something more than a pedantic project of some whimsical layman's, which had no countenance either in the Church or country. It was fostered, if not devised, by some of the leading divines of the age. On the proposed committee of review and revision stood the names of Dr. John Owen and Dr. Ralph Cudworth; and on the proposed committee of supervision, the names of Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Mr. Joseph Caryl. On the committee of review there was the name of a Scotsman also, Mr. John Row, Professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen. This Mr. John was son of the more famous John of Carnock, but was one of the unstable zealots who in those days of ecclesiastical revolt deserted the Presbyterian Church of their fathers and adopted the principles of congregational independence. So ready was he to undertake the duties proposed for him in the bill brought into Parliament, that he had a programme of his committee's procedure, cut and dry upon paper. "For ye bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) . . . five things are to be endeavoured," said Mr. John. These five things are, "a more proper, rational, and dexterous" division of chapters, verses and sentences; an amendment of " needless transposition of words or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyses"; the excision of all useless additions "that debase the wisdom of the spirit"; the reparation of " all sinful and needless detractions "; and the introduction of certain specified "mutations and changes." Under several of these heads, detailed explanations and instructions were given. The useless additions to be removed from the Bible were, all the apocryphal writings; all popish prints, plates, and pictures; all prefixes of saint to evangelists and apostles; and all spurious subscriptions of particular epistles. Among the mutations and changes recommended, were, the printing of God's names and titles in capital letters ; magisterial correction of all misprints; an "idiomatization" of English words not understood in Scotland ; a substitution of English for Hebrew, Greek and Latin terms ; and "something equivocal to Keriand Kethib!"
From 1653 to 1871, demands more or less loud continued to be made from time to time by divines and biblical scholars for a revision of the King's, or what we are more accustomed to call the authorised, version of the Scriptures. In 1659, "An essay toward the amendment of the last English translation of the Bible," was published by Dr. Robert Gell; and in 1702 a similar essay was published by "H. R., a minister of the Church of England." In the middle of the eighteenth century, revision was advocated by several men of note, including Lowth and Seeker. Towards the end of the century the agitation was renewed. In 1788, a book was printed at Cambridge under the title of "Reasons for revising by authority our present version of the Bible." From the same Universitytown were issued, in 1789, "Observations on the expediency of revising the present English version of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles," by Professor John Symonds; and five years later there was published, by the same author, another set of observations on the expediency of retranslating the Epistles. In 1792, Archbishop Newcome gave the weight of his name and influence to the movement for revision, and cited high authorities of unquestioned orthodoxy, who were all in favour of the project. Among those that, in the present century advocated the desirability of a new translation of the Bible into English, it will suffice to name Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough (1828), Professor Scholefield (1832), Professor Selwyn (1856), Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin (1858), Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester (1870), Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, (1871). It must be admitted however, that men of equal or almost equal eminence, both in the first and second half of the present century, set themselves sternly against the project of revising the King's version. In 1819, an able vindication of the authorised translation of the Bible was published by the Rev. Henry John Todd. In 1820, Archbishop Lawrence took up his episcopal pen, and, on the grounds that it was impossible to restore the original text of the Hebrew Testament, and to clearly establish the text of the Greek Testament, contended that no revision of the English Bible could be satisfactory or beneficial. During the first decade of the present half century, when Selwyn and Trench were advocating revision, and holding forth the benefits that would result therefrom, Mr. Malan, Mr. Scrivener, Dr. Cumming, and Dr. M'Caul were as vigorously enforcing the duty of "holding fast what we have."
And not only has there, from 1645, been a demand, more or less loud and widespread, for a revision of the King's version of the Bible, but not a few attempts have been made to furnish such a revision in whole or in part. As far back as 1639, a translation of the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Canticles was published by Dr. Henry Ainsworth, a member of the Brownist persuasion. So well thought of, too, in the time of the commonwealth was this work of Dr. Ainsworth's, that, in the bill before Parliament in 1653, his translation was specially commended to the favourable consideration of the proposed committee of review. But it does not appear to have been a really meritorious work. The translation was literal beyond all propriety, and the diction was even more archaic than that of the version it was meant to supersede. In the ninety-fifth Psalm the following renderings occur: "Let us prevent his face with confession." ... "Whose the sea is, for he made it; and the dry land his hands have formed." ... "Come let us bow down ourselves and bend." ... "Forty years I was irked with that generation; and said, they are a people erring in heart."
