[bibleprotector]

I will quote two passages from my book. First, regarding the situation prior to the "Revised Version":

A. W. Pollard wrote, in the preface to the 1911 reprint of the First 1611 Edition, “It must be remembered that no copy of the version of 1611 had been ‘sealed’ as a standard ... and these attempts to increase consistency and to remove errors were wholly laudable. On the other hand it is obvious that under cover of such minor revisions more serious changes might be introduced.”

The need for a revision to the King James Bible. On one side, this was the door whereby Satan could enter, yet on the other, it seemed necessary, though just how much or what exactly was to be revised was uncertain. It was reported by Eyre and Strahan in 1806 after careful collation, that 116 errata were discovered to have existed in the 1769 Edition. Given the controversy that the neo-Puritans had stirred at the same time as the revitalisation of the Romanising movement around 1830, revision seemed to be both needful and desirable, yet impractical and possibly dangerous. Extremists would pull one way, while Romanisers would go fully another: what was needed was a conservative approach, which meant that those with good intentions decided to wait and see what Providence had in store.

Writers recognised that there was some kind of standard, such as the American scholar, Alexander McClure. In his 1858 book The Translators Revived, he stated that there was, to his understanding, “an immaculate text”, and that “It is quite certain that no portion of the work has been done over again since 1611, by any divine of England or America, in a way which, by general consent of the Christian community, could supplant the corresponding portion as it stands in our family and pulpit Bibles.” But there was a weakness in his reasoning that would allow for a supplanting, “Not that the utmost verbal perfection is claimed for the English Bible as it now stands.” And, “If ever the time shall come for a new revision of the Translation, let it be done ... by men who shall know what they are about, and how it ought to be done. It will be a vast undertaking, affecting the dearest interests of ages of time, and millions upon millions of immortals.”

Cambridge editor, Dean (later Archbishop) Trench wrote in his 1858 The Authorized Version of the New Testament, Cambridge: “I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for we are not as yet in any respect prepared for it. The Greek and the English which should enable us to bring this to a successful end, might, it is feared, be wanting alike.” (Trench was one of the pioneers of modernist attack on the King James Bible.) Just how much the Greek was to be revised was the most dangerous issue of all. But slight fixing seemed to be acceptable by many.

Even though several small changes had occurred in Cambridge Bibles, the Cambridge Bible of the latter half of the nineteenth century was still not quite perfect. Thus, there was a genuine need for a small revision, as Dr Christopher Wordsworth himself noted, that much less than 750 changes were needful or desirable.

Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which he laid out as, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Certainly, there were problems, such as the rendering in Joshua 19:2, where theologians and scholars knew that Beer-sheba and Sheba were one and the same, and therefore the verse should properly read “Beer-sheba or Sheba”, but such changes were not forthcoming in Victorian Bibles, simply because uncertainty and a touch-not-the-AV mentality prevailed. In fact, the King James Bible was recognised “to be the perfection of our English language”, where ideas of perfection of text and religion ran together, so that “to reform the text of the Bible would have appeared to the ignorant little less than a change in national religion”, which ultimately “would lead to resistance to any change to the received form of the text of the KJB.” And considering the turmoils Europe had passed through after the French Revolution, stability and tradition were the order of the day.

Alexander McClure wrote, “The work, though not absolutely perfect, nor incapable of amendment in detached places, is yet so well done, that the Christian public will not endure to have it tampered with. It would be impossible ... to collect at this day a body of professors and divines, from England and America together, which should be equal in numbers and in learning to those assembled by King James; and in whom the churches would feel enough of confidence to entrust them with a repetition of the work. The common version has become a permanent necessity, through its immense influence on the language, literature, manners, opinions, character, institutions, history, religion, and entire life and development of the Anglo-Saxon [nations]”. He concluded that, “The best fruits of Christianity have sprung from the seeds our translation has scattered.”

Second, I will quote in regard to how there was indeed a revision of the King James Bible which was needful, and accomplished, being the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible:

Despite imperfections, J. W. Burgon’s view of revising the King James Bible was somewhat prophetic. He said, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611)”. Of course, Burgon was not entirely correct in his view of revising the underlying texts, but he was correct that further work was required in the King James Bible. He also quoted the modernist Ellicott’s words, “‘No Revision’ (he [Ellicott] says) ‘in the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and dictation of the present Authorized Version.’” This was perfectly true, in that Ellicot’s own favoured Revised Version failed his own requirements, though what Burgon pointed out was that whatever change was to happen in the revision of the King James Bible would at the last be nothing less than a preservation of it. That the revision actually was only of some forty-eight words is a testimony of just how much the 1769 Edition as already presented by Cambridge was to meet acceptance.

Burgon made it very plain that the Revised Version could not be any factor in the work. “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” Very little revision did take place in the New Testament Scriptures, and all work there was in line with the textual history of the King James Bible, mainly the 1611 Edition, and probably in reference to Scrivener’s book. There is no indication that the Revised Version was in any particular way an influence in the making of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” This was a condition which was entirely lacking in the Revised Version, yet in the history of the Church, “the translation of the Seventy” had been set “forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.” (TTR, Section 12, Paragraph 2). There were two reasons why Burgon’s generally overlooked advice was actually heeded:

First, the changes to the spelling of names in the Old Testament and the affect on several nouns in the New Testament of the Pure Cambridge Edition are evidence of being done with an understanding of the original languages.

Second, the introduction of the pronunciation signs in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which would require extensive Biblical linguistic knowledge, were done by Henry A. Redpath, whose renowned work was none other than A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament which was published in 1897–1906 by Clarendon, Oxford. Redpath, in his short statement at the front of the Bible, restricted all matter to internal considerations of the Authorized Version, stating, “so far as it is noted in the Authorized Version”, thus eliminating the introduction of external ideas onto the text. Redpath’s pronunciation system must have been adopted by Cambridge at an early stage, probably around 1900 or so.

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future [after 1884] (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the [English] Text as few alterations as possible.’” And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” It can be happily reported that the Pure Cambridge Edition does indeed commend itself in these points, and that the worthy editor brought about only those changes that were needful, which never required anything like the undertaking of a whole new version.

In summary: People in the 1800s saw the need for a revision, but to what extent was uncertain, indeed, a certain portion of people were open to far more "revision" than what was needful, and which manifested something of great harm. When the real revision occured, most never realised it, and did not understand the nature of it. That includes King James Bible supporting people right up to recent times.