OF HOLY SCRIPTURE***


Transcribed from the 1901 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org





Addresses on the Revised
Version of Holy
Scripture.


                                    BY
                          C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,

                          BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER,
            AND HON. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

          PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE.

                                 LONDON:
                SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,
       NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.; 43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.
                       BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET.
                     NEW YORK: E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO.
                                  1901.




PREFATORY NOTE.


The following Addresses form the Charge to the Archdeaconry of
Cirencester at the Visitation held at the close of October in the present
year.  The object of the Charge, as the opening words and the tenor of
the whole will abundantly indicate, is seriously to suggest the question,
whether the time has not now arrived for the more general use of the
Revised Version at the lectern in the public service of the Church.

                                                         C. J. GLOUCESTER.

_October_, 1901.




CONTENTS.
                                                                      PAGE
            ADDRESS I.  EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION                        5
                ,, II.  LATER HISTORY OF REVISION                       17
               ,, III.  HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT                           48
                ,, IV.  NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS                        81
                 ,, V.  PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION                      117





ADDRESS I.
EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION.


As there now seem to be sufficient grounds for thinking that ere long the
Revised Version of Holy Scripture will obtain a wider circulation and
more general use than has hitherto been accorded to it, it seems
desirable that the whole subject of the Revised Version, and its use in
the public services of the Church, should at last be brought formally
before the clergy and laity, not only of this province, but of the whole
English Church.

Twenty years have passed away since the appearance of the Revised Version
of the New Testament, and the presentation of it by the writer of these
pages to the Convocation of Canterbury on May 17, 1881.  Just four more
years afterwards, viz. on April 30, 1885, the Revised Version of the Old
Testament was laid before the same venerable body by the then Bishop of
Winchester (Bp. Harold Browne), and, similarly to the Revised Version of
the New Testament, was published simultaneously in this country and
America.  It was followed, after a somewhat long interval, by the Revised
Version of the Apocrypha, which was laid before Convocation by the writer
of these pages on February 12, 1896.

The revision of the Authorised Version has thus been in the hands of the
English-speaking reader sixteen years, in the case of the Canonical
Scriptures, and five years in the case of the Apocrypha--periods of time
that can hardly be considered insufficient for deciding generally,
whether, and to what extent, the Revised Version should be used in the
public services of the Church.

I have thus thought it well, especially after the unanimous resolution of
the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, three years ago {6},
and the very recent resolution of the House of Laymen, to place before
you the question of the use of the Revised Version in the public services
of the Church, as the ultimate subject of this charge.  I repeat, as the
ultimate subject, for no sound opinion on the public use of this version
can possibly be formed unless some general knowledge be acquired, not
only of the circumstances which paved the way for the revision of the
time-honoured version of 1611, but also of the manner in which the
revision was finally carried out.  We cannot properly deal with a
question so momentous as that of introducing a revised version of God's
Holy Word into the services of the Church, without knowing, at least in
outline, the whole history of the version which we are proposing to
introduce.  This history then I must now place before you from its very
commencement, so far as memory and a nearly life-long connexion with the
subject enable me to speak.

The true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, more
particularly, of the revision of the New Testament, must be regarded as
the grammar written by a young academic teacher, George Benedict Winer,
as far back as 1822, bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language of
the New Testament.  It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, and
indeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed in
commentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.  It met with at first the fate of all assaults on prevailing
unscientific procedures, but its value and its truth were soon
recognized.  The volume passed through several successively improved
editions, until in 1855 the sixth edition was reached, and issued with a
new and interesting preface by the then distinguished and veteran writer.
This edition formed the basis of the admirable and admirably supplemented
translation of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, which
was published in 1870, passed through a second edition six years
afterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard grammar,
in an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this day.

The claim that I have put forward for this remarkable book as the
fountain-head of revision can easily be justified when we call to memory
how very patently the volume, in one or another of its earlier editions,
formed the grammatical basis of the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer,
and, here in England, of the commentary of Alford, and of critical and
grammatical commentaries on some of St. Paul's Epistles with which my own
name was connected.  It was to Winer that we were all indebted for that
greater accuracy of interpretation of the Greek Testament which was
recognized and welcomed by readers of the New Testament at the time I
mention, and produced effects which had a considerable share in the
gradual bringing about of important movements that almost naturally
followed.

What came home to a large and increasing number of earnest and
truth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this--that there were
inaccuracies and errors in the current version of the Holy Scriptures,
and especially of the New Testament, which plainly called for
consideration and correction, and further brought home to very many of us
that this could never be brought about except by an authoritative
revision.

This general impression spread somewhat rapidly; and soon after the
middle of the last century it began to take definite shape.  The subject
of the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament found a
place in the religious and other periodicals of the day {10a}, and as the
time went on was the subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded to
even in Convocation {10b} and Parliament {10c}.  As yet however there had
been no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by its
numerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally entertained as to the
form that a revision might ultimately take.  It was feared by many that
any authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance and
influence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of Holy
Scripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions that were
prevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the cause of sound
religion in our Church and in our nation.

There was thus a real danger, unless some forward step was quickly and
prudently taken, that the excitement might gradually evaporate, and the
movement for revision might die out, as has often been the case in regard
of the Prayer Book, into the old and wonted acquiescence of the past.

It was just at this critical time that an honoured and influential
churchman, who was then the popular and successful secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. Ernest Hawkins,
afterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and persuaded a few of us,
who had the happiness of being his friends, to combine and publish a
version of one of the books of the New Testament which might practically
demonstrate to friends and to opponents what sort of a revision seemed
desirable under existing circumstances.  After it had been completed we
described it "as a _tentamen_, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality,
inviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the same
kind, calling the attention of the Church to the many and anxious
questions involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular
language, and offering some help towards the settlement of those
questions {12}."

The portion of Scripture selected was the Gospel according to St. John.
Those who undertook the revision were five in number:--Dr. Barrow, the
then Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford; Dr. Moberly, afterwards
Bishop of Salisbury; Rev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury;
Rev. W. G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields; and lastly, the
writer of this charge.  Mr. Ernest Hawkins, busy as he was, acted to a
great extent as our secretary, superintended arrangements, and encouraged
and assisted us in every possible manner.  Our place of meeting was the
library of our hospitable colleague Mr. Humphry.  We worked in the
greatest possible harmony, and happily and hopefully concluded our
Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel of St. John in the month
of March, 1857.

Our labours were introduced by a wise and attractive preface, written
mainly by Dr. Moberly, in the lucid, reverent, and dignified language
that marked everything that came from the pen of the late Bishop of
Salisbury.

The effect produced by this _tentamen_ was indisputably great.  The work
itself was of course widely criticized, but for the most part favourably
{13}.  The principles laid down in the preface were generally considered
reasonable, and the possibilities of an authoritative revision distinctly
increased.  The work in fact became a kind of object lesson.

It showed plainly that there _were_ errors in the Authorised Version that
needed correction.  It further showed that their removal and the
introduction of improvements in regard of accuracy did not involve,
either in quantity or quality, the changes that were generally
apprehended.  And lastly, it showed in its results that _scholars_ of
different habits of thought could combine in the execution of such a work
without friction or difficulty.

In regard of the Greek text but little change was introduced.  The basis
of our translation was the third edition of Stephens, from which we only
departed when the amount of external evidence in favour of a different
reading was plainly overwhelming.  As we ourselves state in the preface,
"our object was to revise a version, not to frame a text."  We should
have obscured this one purpose if we had entered into textual criticism.

Such was the tentative version which prepared the way for authoritative
revision.

More need not be said on this early effort.  The version of the Gospel of
St. John passed through three editions.  The Epistles to the Romans and
Corinthians appeared in 1858, and the first three of the remaining
Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) in 1861.  The third
edition of the Revision of the Authorised Version of St. John was issued
in 1863, with a preface in which the general estimate of the revision was
discussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative procedure
in reference to the whole question.  As our little band had now been
reduced to four, and its general aim and object had been realized, we did
not deem it necessary to proceed with a work which had certainly helped
to remove most of the serious objections to authoritative revision.  Our
efforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were then
appearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, by the
important work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, Trench, entitled "On
the Authorised Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent
proposals for its revision."  This appeared in 1858.  After the close of
our tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as they may be
termed) of the movement did but little except, from time to time, confer
with one another on the now yearly improving prospects of authoritative
revision.  In 1869 Dean Alford published a small handy revised version of
the whole of the Greek Testament, and, a short time afterwards, I
published a small volume on the "Revision of the English Version," in
which I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and vigorous
translation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised Version, and how
little of this would ever be likely to disappear in any authoritatively
revised version of the future.  Some estimate also was made of the amount
of changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the Gospels.  A
few months later, a very valuable volume ("On a Fresh Revision of the New
Testament") was published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot,
which appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of a
revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word was about to be
realized.

All now was ready for a definite and authoritative commencement.  Of
this, and of the later history of Revision, a brief account will be given
in the succeeding Address.




ADDRESS II.
LATER HISTORY OF REVISION.


We are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative and
preparatory passed into definite and authoritative realization.

The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of
the Convocation of Canterbury.  The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the
Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be
desirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the
House, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the
indirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence
of the Northern Convocation.  The resolution was as follows:

    "That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer
    with any committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the
    Northern Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of
    the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal
    notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors,
    whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the
    translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due
    investigation be found to exist."

In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by
the insertion of the words "Old and," so as to include both Testaments,
and, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once
sent down to the Lower House.  After debate it was accepted by them, and,
having been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the
arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.

Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far as
plainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thus
undertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocation
during its long and eventful history, followed every course, adopted
every expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the great
work it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.

It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with the
primary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed of
eight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regular
rule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, to
confer with the Convocation of York.  The members of the Upper House were
as follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids
(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (Harold
Browne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon after
withdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself.

The members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth, Dean
of Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley),
and Lincoln (Jeremie); the Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter
(Freeman), and Rochester (Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons
Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De
Winton.

Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of
Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five
resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them,
were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in
the Lower House:

    "1.  That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version
    of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.

    2.  That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal
    renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to
    insert in the text of the Authorised Version.

    3.  That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new
    translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except
    where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change
    is necessary.

    4.  That in such necessary changes, the style of the language
    employed in the existing version be closely followed.

    5.  That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of
    its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at
    liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to
    whatever nation or religious body they may belong."

These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by
the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body.  The second and third
rules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the
emendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of
revision.  This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive,
but in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by
Convocation.  A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop
of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known
periodical {21} that the revisers "largely exceeded their instructions,
and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow."
This is a very grave charge, but can it be substantiated?  The second and
third rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt necessity
on the part of "the most competent scholars," and these last-mentioned
must surely be understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for
the work.  In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of
Convocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was to be
faithfulness to the original.  All then that can justly be said in
reference to the Revisers is this,--not that they exceeded their
instructions (a very serious charge), but that their estimate of what
constituted faithfulness, and involved the necessity of change, was, from
time to time, in the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated.
Such language however as that used in reference to the changes made by
the Revisers as "unnecessary and uninstructive alterations," and
"irritating trivialities," was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the
judgement arrived at.

But to proceed.  On the presentation of the Report it was stated that the
committee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, as
no committee had been appointed by them.  It was commonly supposed that
the Northern President (Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the
two Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very different
view {22}, as our President informed us that he had received a
communication from the Convocation of York to the effect that--"The
Authorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the
Established Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the
English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and
that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to
time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text.
That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a
committee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation
of Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified."

This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the Northern
Convocation.  We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were many
able and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we should
have heartily welcomed.  Delay, however, was now out of the question.
The working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the
Convocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed
revision.

The course of our proceedings was then as follows:

After the Report of the committee had been accepted by the Upper House,
and communicated to the Lower House, the following resolution was
unanimously adopted by the Upper House (May 3, 1870), and in due course
sent down to the Lower House:

    "That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to
    Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in the
    Report now adopted.  That the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids,
    Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely, Salisbury, Lincoln, Bath and
    Wells, be members of the committee.  That the committee be empowered
    to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from
    their biblical scholarship to aid them in their work."

This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that as
this was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact an
executive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinary
committees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House,
but simply an equal number.  This request, though obviously a very
reasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to
without some debate and even remonstrance.  This, however, was overcome
and quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of the
Prolocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by the
Lower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans of
Canterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford
(Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed
as members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.

This Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of choosing experts,
and, out of them and their own members, forming two Companies, the one
for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the
other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament.
Rules had to be drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying
out in detail of the whole of the proposed work.  In this work it may be
supposed that considerable difficulty would have been found in the choice
of biblical scholars in addition to those already appointed by
Convocation.  This, however, did not prove to be the case.  I was at that
time acting as a kind of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of
Dr. Moulton and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of
distinguished biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in
England and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be made.
When we met together finally to choose, there was thus no lack of
suitable names.

In regard of the many rules that had to be made for the orderly carrying
out of the work I prepared, after careful conference with the Bishop of
Winchester, a draft scheme which, so far as I remember, was in the sequel
substantially adopted by what I have termed the Permanent Committee of
Convocation.  When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870,
the names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed upon,
and invitations at once sent out.  The members of the Committee had
already been assigned to their special companies; viz. to the Old
Testament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who
soon after resigned), and Bath and Wells; and from the Lower House,
Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New
Testament Company, the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and
Salisbury; and from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of
Canterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.

Those invited to join the Old Testament were as follows:--Dr. W. L.
Alexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr.
B. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch,
Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne
Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr.
Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and
valuable secretary of the Company.

Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.

Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows:--Dr.
Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie,
Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee,
Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman,
Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol
College), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth),
Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.

Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health
and preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New
Testament, was unable to attend.  It should be here mentioned that soon
after the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of
Westminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Company
as their secretary.  A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigable
secretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for the
great and responsible work.

On the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out of the
revision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were all
duly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear and
open for the commencement of the work.  These rules (copies of which will
be found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto
issued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the
fundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have been
already specified.

The first of these subsidiary rules was as follows:--"To introduce as few
alterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version
consistently with faithfulness."  This rule must be read in connexion
with the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I have
already made on those rules.

The second of the rules of the committee was as follows:--"To limit, as
far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of
the Authorised and earlier English versions."  This rule was carefully
attended to in its reference to the Authorised Version.  I do not however
remember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that we
often fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions.  They
were always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there
were differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings of
the ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and
occasionally of the Gothic and Armenian.  To these, however, the rule
makes no allusion.

The third rule speaks for itself:--"Each Company to go twice over the
portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and
on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided."

The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and is
an amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule.  The
rule of the committee is as follows:--"That the text to be adopted be
that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when
the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version
was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin."  The subject of the
text is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows:--"To make or
retain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company
except _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on the
first revision to decide by simple majorities."

The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I do
not know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was very
rarely acted upon:--"In every case of proposed alteration that may have
given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next
meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those
present at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice
for the next meeting."  The only occasion on which I can remember this
rule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one.  At
the close of a long day's work we found ourselves differing on the
renderings of "tomb" or "sepulchre" in one of the narratives of the
Resurrection.  This was easily and speedily settled the following
morning.

The seventh rule was as follows:--"To revise the headings of chapters and
pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation."  This rule was very
carefully attended to except as regards headings of chapters and pages.
These were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of
direct interpretation, that both Companies agreed to leave this portion
of the work to some committee of the two University Presses that they
might afterwards think fit to appoint.  Small as the work might seem to
be if only confined to the simple revision of the existing headings, the
time it would have taken up, if undertaken by the Companies, would
certainly have been considerable.  I revised, on my own account, the
headings of the chapters in St. Matthew, and was surprised to find how
much time was required to do accurately and consistently what might have
seemed a very easy and inconsiderable work.

The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarely
acted upon: "To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered
desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or
abroad, for their opinions."  How far this was acted on by the Old
Testament Company I do not know.  In regard of the New Testament Company
the only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule,
was in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventh
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.  In this particular case we sent our
sheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of us
knew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nautically
correct.  I believe this friendly and competent authority did not find
anything amiss.  It has sometimes been said that it would have been
better, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule had
been more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English and
alterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our more
distinguished literary men.  It may be so; though I much doubt whether in
matters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominant
arbiter.  In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much could
have been effected by appealing to the ears of others.  At any rate we
preferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards
mention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been
improved upon.

The concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: "That the
work of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in
order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language
as possible."

All preliminaries were now settled.  The invitations were issued, and,
with the exceptions of Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were
readily accepted.  Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor
Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added to those
already mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament Company, and, in
less than a month after the meeting of the committee on May 25, both
Companies had entered upon their responsible work.  On June 22, 1870,
both Companies, after a celebration of the Holy Communion, previously
announced by Dean Stanley as intended to be administered by him in
Westminster Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII, commenced the
long-looked-for revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word.
The Old Testament Company commenced their work in the Chapter Library;
the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber.

The number of the members in each Company was very nearly the same, viz.
twenty-seven in the Old Testament Company, and, in nominal attendance,
twenty-six in the New Testament Company.  In the former Company, owing to
the longer time found necessary for the work (fourteen years), there were
more changes in the composition of the Company than in the case of the
latter Company, which completed its work three years and a half before
its sister Company.  At the close of the work on the New Testament
(1880), the numbers in each Company were twenty-six and twenty-five; but
owing to various reasons, and especially the distance of many of the
members from London, the number in actual and regular attendance was
somewhat reduced as the years went onward.  How it fared with the Old
Testament Company I cannot precisely state.  Bishop Harold Browne, after
his accession to the See of Winchester, was only able to attend twice or
three times after the year 1875.  In that year Bishop Thirlwall died, and
Bishop Ollivant ceased to attend, but remained a corresponding member
till his death in 1882.  Vacancies, I am informed, were filled up till
October 1875, after which date no new members were added.  The Company,
however, worked to the very end with great devotion and assiduity.  The
revision occupied 794 days, and was completed in eighty-five sessions,
the greater part of which were for ten days each, at about six hours a
day.

I can speak a little more exactly in reference to the New Testament
Company.  The time was shorter, and the changes in the composition of the
Company were fewer.  At the end of the work a record was made out of the
attendances of the individual members {35}, from which it was easy to
arrive at the average attendance, which for the whole time was found to
be as much as sixteen each day.  The number of sessions was 101 of four
days each, and one of three days, making a total of 407 days in all.
More than 1,200 days were thus devoted to the work of the revision of the
Authorised Versions of both Testaments.  The first revision, in the case
of the New Testament lasted about six years; the second, two years and a
half.  The remaining two years were spent in the consideration of various
details and reserved questions, and especially the consideration of the
suggestions, on our second revision, of the American Revisers, of whose
work and connexion with the English Revisers it will now be convenient to
speak.

                                * * * * *

The idea of a connexion with America in the great work of revision was
nearly as early as the movements in Convocation of which an account has
been given.  It appears that, in the session of Convocation in July,
1870, it was moved in the Lower House by Lord Alwyne Compton (afterwards
and now Bishop of Ely) that the committee of Convocation should be
instructed to invite the co-operation of some American divines.  This was
at once agreed to by both Houses, and measures were taken to open
communications with America.  The correspondence was opened by the acting
Chairman of the New Testament Company (the present writer) in a letter to
Dr. Angus (dated July 20, 1870 {36}) who was about to visit the United
States, empowering him to prepare the way for definite action on the part
of American scholars and divines.  This he did in a letter ("Historical
Account," p. 31) sent round to American scholars, and especially by
communication with Dr. Philip Schaff of the Bible House at New York, who,
from the first, had taken the deepest interest in the movement.  This
active and enterprising scholar at once took up the matter, and operated
so successfully that, as he himself tells us in his valuable and accurate
"Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version" (New York,
1883), a committee of about thirty members was formally organized Dec. 7,
1871, and entered upon active work on Oct. 4, 1872, after the first
revision of the Synoptical Gospels had been forwarded by the New
Testament Company.

Our Old Testament Company was no less active and co-operative.  As they
tell us in the Preface prefixed to their revision, "the first revision of
the several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the consideration
of the American Revisers, and, except in the case of the Pentateuch
(which had been twice gone through prior to co-operation) the English
Company had the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions before they
proceeded to the second revision.  The second revision was in like manner
forwarded to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Revisers
were in the hands of the English Company at their final review."  Both
our English Companies bear hearty testimony to the value derived from the
co-operation.  In the case of the New Testament Company, the "care,
vigilance, and accuracy" which marked the work of their American brethren
is distinctly specified.

But little more need be said of the American Companies.  They were soon
fully organized, and, so far as can be judged by the results of their
work, carefully and judiciously chosen.  The Old Testament Company
consisted of fifteen members, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, being
Chairman: the New Testament Committee consisted of sixteen members, three
of those who had at first accepted having been obliged, from ill-health
and stress of local duties, to resign.  Dr. Woolsey, Ex-President of Yale
College, was Chairman, and Bishop Lee, of the Diocese of Delaware, one of
the most faithful and valuable participators in the work, a member of the
Company.  Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York, was also a member, and was President of
the whole undertaking, Dr. George Day of Yale College, a member of the
Old Testament Company, being the general secretary.  The two Companies
met every month (except July and August) in two rooms in the Bible House,
New York, but without any connexion with the Bible Society, which, as in
England, could only circulate the Authorised Version.

The American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included representatives of
nine different denominations, viz. Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and, to the extent of one
member, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Society of Friends.  The Episcopal
Church of America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the request
that they would take part in the revision: this was declined.  The
American Church however, as we have already shown, was not wholly
unrepresented in the work.  The whole Committee was obviously much more
mixed than the English Committee; but it must not be forgotten that
though the English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, and
Episcopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly one-third of
the two Companies were not members of the Church of England.  If we
assume that each Company consisted at any given time of twenty-five
members, which, as we have seen, would be approximately correct, the
non-Episcopal members will be found to have been not less than sixteen,
viz. seven Presbyterians, four Independents or Congregationalists, two
Baptists, two Wesleyans, and one Unitarian.  Be this however as it may,
it is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God the
Holy Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the work both here
and in America.  Here, as is well known, this was the case; and in
America, to quote one only out of many similar witnesses, one who was
himself a reviser, and the only pastor in the Company (the Old Testament
Company), thus gives his experience, "Never, even once, did the _odium
theologicum_ appear.  Nothing was said at any time that required
retraction or apology {41}."

This brief notice of our American brethren may close with one further
comment.  Their work began, like ours, with reliance on financial aid
from the many who would be sure to be interested in such an important and
long-desired work.  Help in our case was at once readily proffered, but
very soon was found not to be necessary, owing to our disposal of
copyright to the Presses of the two Universities.  With the American
Revisers it was otherwise.  During the whole twelve years all the
necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and other
accessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed by
liberal donors from among the friends of biblical revision.  There
remained, however, a grave difficulty.  It was plainly impossible that
such distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companies
could simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent over to
them without being recognized as fellow revisers in the full sense of the
words.  How, however, formally to establish this parity of position was
found to be very difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, who
had trade rights which had properly to be guarded.  The result was much
friendly negotiation for several months, but without any definite
adjustment {42a}.  At last, by the wise and conciliatory action of the
Presses an agreement was arrived at in August, 1877 {42b}, by which we on
this side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the various
stages of our work to our American brethren and carefully to consider all
their suggestions, but also to sanction the publication in every copy of
the revision of a list of all the important passages, in regard of text
and renderings, upon which the English and American Revisers could not
finally agree.  The American Revisers on their part undertook not to
publish any edition of their own for fourteen years.

The fourteen years have now passed away, but prior to the expiration of
the time the long-needed marginal references were completed, and in
September, 1898, were attached to the pages of all the larger English
copies of the Revised Version of the Holy Scripture, with a short account
of the sources from which they were derived, and of the circumstances of
their delayed publication.  As they were somewhat closely connected with
the labours of two of the members of the New Testament Company, and had
received the general approval of that Company, I had real pleasure in
presenting to both Houses of Convocation on Feb. 10, 1899, the completed
body of references, and, in them, the very last portion of every part of
the work of the Company with which I had so long been connected.

The appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it enabled the
Universities to acquire copyright for any of the editions _with these
references_ which they might publish, or cause to be published in
America.  The University Press of Oxford has, I know, acted on this
right, but whether in conjunction with the Cambridge University Press or
independently I am not able to say.  The right at any rate remains, and
in the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may now
suppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of altered editions of
the revision, which from time to time might be brought forward by
irresponsible publishers {44}.

One subject still remains to be noticed in this portion of my address
which cannot be passed over--the revision of the Apocrypha.  This the
English revisers were pledged to the University Presses to complete,
before our connexion with them could be rightfully concluded.  This
revision, as we know, has been completed, though perhaps not in a manner
that can be considered as completely satisfactory, owing to the want of a
co-ordinating authority.  The arrangement, of which a full and clear
account will be found in the preface to the published volume, was briefly
as follows.  On March 21, 1879, as the New Testament Company was fast
approaching the completion of its labours, it was agreed that the Company
should be divided into three portions, each consisting of eight members,
to which the names of the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Companies
were to be respectively assigned.  The portion of the work that each of
the three Companies was to take was settled by lot.  To the London
Company, of which I was a member, the book of Ecclesiasticus was
assigned; to the Westminster Company, the first book of Maccabees, and
subsequently the books Tobit and Judith; and to the Cambridge Company,
the second book of Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.

On the completion of their work, the Old Testament Company assigned to a
special committee chosen out of their number the remaining books of the
Apocrypha, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, the remainder of Esther, Baruch, Song of
the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of
Manasses.

It was agreed that each Company and the above-named committee should go
through their work twice, but without the two-thirds condition, and that
each body should send its work when completed round to the rest.  The
times, however, at which the portions were completed were by no means,
even approximately, the same.  The London Company completed its work in
May, 1883.  The Westminster Company finished the first book of Maccabees
in November, 1881, and the books of Tobit and Judith in October, 1882.
The Cambridge Company completed its revision of the second book of
Maccabees in December, 1889, and of the Book of Wisdom, which underwent
three revisions, in November, 1891.  The revision of the remaining books,
undertaken by the Old Testament Company, does not seem to have been
completed till even two or three years later.  This interval of ten or
twelve years involved in some of the books, especially in reference to
Ecclesiasticus, the clear necessity for further revision.  This compelled
me, with the help of my valued friend Dr. Moulton, to go over the work of
my former Company on my own responsibility, my coadjutors in the work
having been either called away by death or too seriously ill to help me.

It was thus with some sense of relief that, on the request of those
connected with the publication of the volume, I presented the Revised
Version of the Apocrypha to the two Houses of Convocation on February 12,
1896.

The rise and progress of the desire for a revision of the Authorised
Version of Holy Scripture has now been set forth as fully as the limits
of these Addresses permit.  What now remains to be specified is what may
be called the internal history of this Revision, or, in other words, the
nature and procedure of the work, with such concluding comments as the
circumstances of the present may appear to suggest.




ADDRESS III.
HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT.


We now pass from what may be called the outward history of the Revision
to the inward nature and character of the work of the Revisers, and may
naturally divide that work into two portions--their labours as regards
the original text, and their labours in regard of rendering and
translation.

I.  First, then, as regards the original text of the Old Testament.

Here the work of the Old Testament Company was very slight as compared
with that of the New Testament Company.  The latter Company had, almost
in every other verse, to settle upon a text--often involving much that
was doubtful and debatable--before they proceeded to the further work of
translating.  The Old Testament Company, on the contrary, had ready to
hand a _textus receptus_ which really deserved the title, and on which,
in their preface, they write as follows: "The received, or, as it is
commonly called, the Massoretic text of the Old Testament Scriptures has
come down to us in manuscripts which are of no very great antiquity, and
which all belong to the same family or recension.  That other recensions
were at one time in existence is probable from the variations in the
Ancient Versions, the oldest of which, namely, the Greek or Septuagint,
was made, at least in part, some two centuries before the Christian era.
But as the date of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to
justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the
authority of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to
adopt the Massoretic text as the basis of their work, and to depart from
it, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases."

That in this decision the Revisers had exercised the sound judgement
which marks every part of their work cannot possibly be doubted by any
competent reader.  The Massoretic text has a long and interesting
history.  Its name is derived from a word, Massora (tradition), that
reminds us of the accumulated traditions and criticisms relating to
numerous passages of the text, and of the manner in which it was to be
read, all which were finally committed to writing, and the ultimate
result of which is the text of which we have been speaking.  That the
formation of the written Massora was a work of time seems a probable and
reasonable supposition.  A very competent writer {50} tells us that this
formation may have extended from the sixth or seventh to the tenth or
eleventh century.  From the end of this Massoretic period onward the same
writer tells us that the Massora became the great authority by which the
text given in all the Jewish manuscripts was settled.  All our
manuscripts, in a word, are Massoretic.  Any that were not so were not
used, and allowed to perish, or, as it has been thought, were destroyed
as not being in strict accordance with the recognized standards.  Whether
we have sustained any real critical loss by the disappearance of the
rejected manuscripts it is impossible to say.  The fact only remains that
we have no manuscript of any portion of the Old Testament certainly known
to be of a date prior to A.D. 916.  The Massora, it may be mentioned,
appears in two forms--the _Massora parva_ and the _Massora magna_.  The
former contains the really valuable portion of the great work, viz., the
variation technically named K'ri (_read_), and placed in the margin of
the Hebrew Bibles.  This was to be substituted for the corresponding
portion in the text technically named C'thib (_written_), and was
regarded by the Massoretes themselves as the true reading.  The _Massora
magna_ contained the above, and other matter deemed to be of importance
in reference to the interpretation of the text.

The Revisers inform us that they have generally, though not uniformly,
rendered the C'thib in the text, and left the K'ri in the margin, with
the introductory note, "Or, according to another reading," or, "Another
reading is."  When they adopted the K'ri in the text of their rendering,
they placed the C'thib in the margin if it represented a variation of
importance.

These things, and others specified in the preface, should be carefully
attended to by the reader as enabling him to distinguish between the
different characters of the alternative renderings as specified in the
margin.  Those due to the Massoretes, or, in other words, the K'ris, will
naturally deserve attention from their antiquity.  They are not, however,
when estimated with reference to the whole of the sacred volume, very
numerous.  In the earliest printed bible they were 1,171 in number, but
this is generally considered erroneous in excess, 900 being probably much
nearer the true estimate.

We cannot leave the subject of the Hebrew text without some reference to
the emendation of it suggested by the Ancient Versions.  But little, I
believe, of a systematic character has, as yet, been accomplished.  The
Revisers mention that they have been obliged, in some few cases of
extreme difficulty, to depart from the Massoretic text and adopt a
reading from the Ancient Versions.  I regret to observe that it is stated
by one of those connected with the forthcoming American revision of the
Old Testament version that in nearly one hundred cases the marginal
references to the Ancient Versions will be omitted.  Reasons are given,
but these could hardly have escaped the knowledge and observation of the
learned men by whom the references were inserted.  The Revisers also
mention that where the Versions appeared to supply a very probable,
though not so absolutely necessary, correction as displacement of the
Massoretic text, they have still felt it proper to place the reading in
the margin.

This recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient Versions by
the Revisers, though obviously in only a limited number of cases, seems
to indicate the great good that may be expected from a more complete and
systematic use of these ancient authorities in reference to the current
text of the Old Testament.  At present the texts implied in them have, I
believe, never yet been so closely analysed as to enable us to form any
just estimate of their real critical value.  They have been used by
editors, as in the case of Houbigant, but only in a limited and partial
manner.  Lists, I believe, are accessible of all the more important
readings suggested or implied by the Versions; but what is needed is far
more than this.  In the first place we require much more trustworthy
texts of the Versions themselves than are at present at our disposal.  In
the case of the Septuagint we may very shortly look forward to a
thoroughly revised text; and a similar remark may probably be made in
reference to the Vulgate, but I am not aware that much has been done in
the case of the Syriac {53}, and of other versions to which reference
would have to be made in any great critical attempt, such as a revision
of the _textus receptus_ of the Old Testament.

If, however, a first need is trustworthy editions of the Versions, a
second need appears to be a fuller knowledge of the Hebrew material, late
in regard of antiquity though it may be, than was, at any rate, available
till very recently.  The new edition of the text of the Hebrew Bible by
Dr. Ginsburg, with its learned and voluminous introduction, may, and
probably does, supply this fuller knowledge; but as in regard of these
matters I can speak only as a novice, I can only reproduce the statement
commonly made by those who have a right to speak on such subjects, that
the collation of the Hebrew manuscripts that we already possess has been
far from complete.  There appears to have been the feeling that they all
lead up to the Massoretic text, and that any particular variations from
it need not be treated over-seriously; and yet surely we must regard it
as possible that some of these negligible variations might concur with,
and by their concurrence add weight to, readings already rendered
probable by the suggestive testimony of the Ancient Versions.  It may be
right for me to add that the whole question was raised in 1886 by Dr.
Green and Dr. Schaff in a circular letter addressed to distinguished
Hebrews in Germany and elsewhere.  The answers are returned in German
{55}, and are translated.  They are most of them interesting, though not
very encouraging.  The best of them seems to be the answer of Professor
Strack, of Berlin.

But here I must pause.  The use made by the Revisers of these ancient
documents has called out the foregoing comments, and has awakened the
hope, which I now venture to express, that the critical use of the
Versions may be expanded, and form a part of that systematic revision of
the text of the Old Testament which will not improbably form part of the
critical labours of the present century.

II.  We may now turn to the New Testament, and to the revision of the
_textus receptus_ of the New Testament which our rules necessitated, and
which formed a very important and, it may be added, a very anxious part
of our revision.

And here, at the very outset, one general observation is absolutely
necessary.

It is very commonly said, and I fear believed by many to be true, that
the text adopted by the Revisers and afterwards published (in different
forms) by the two University Presses, hardly differs at all from the
afterwards published text of the two distinguished scholars and critics,
one of whom was called from us a few years ago, and the other of whom
has, to our great sorrow, only recently left us.  I allude, of course, to
the Greek Testament, now of world-wide reputation, of Westcott and Hort.
What has been often asserted, and is still repeated, is this, that the
text had been in print for some time before it was finally published, and
was in the hands of the Revisers almost, if not quite, from the very
first.  It was this, so the statement runs, that they really worked upon,
and this that they assimilated.

Now this I unhesitatingly declare, as I shall subsequently be able to
prove, is contrary to the facts of the case.  It is perfectly true that
our two eminent colleagues gave, I believe, to each one of us, from time
to time, little booklets of their text as it then stood in print, but
which we were always warned were not considered by the editors themselves
as final.  These portions of their text were given to us, not to win us
over to adopt it, but to enable us to see each proposed reading in its
continuity.  How these booklets were used by the members of the Company
generally, I know not.  I can only speak for myself; but I cannot
suppress the conviction that I was acting unconsciously in the same
manner as the great majority of the Company.  I only used the booklets
for occasional reference.  In preparing the portion of the sacred volume
on which we were to be engaged in the next session of the Company, I took
due note of the readings as well as of the renderings, but I formed my
judgement independently on the evidence supplied to me by the notes of
the critical edition, whether that of Tischendorf or Tregelles, which I
then was in the habit of using.  This evidence was always fully stated to
the Company, nearly always by Dr. Scrivener, and it was upon the
discussion of this evidence, and not on the reading of any particular
editor, on which the decision of the Company was ultimately formed.  We
paid in all cases great attention to the arguments of our two eminent
colleagues and our experienced colleague, Dr. Scrivener; but each
question of reading, as it arose, was settled by the votes of the
Company.  The resulting text, as afterwards published by the Oxford
University Press, and edited by Archdeacon Palmer, was thus the direct
work of the Company, and may be rightly designated, as it will be in
these pages, as the Revisers' text.

It is of considerable importance that this should be borne in mind; for,
in the angry vituperation which was directed against the Revisers' text,
it was tacitly assumed that this text was practically identical with that
of Westcott and Hort, and that the difficulties which are to be found in
this latter text (and some there certainly are) are all to be found in
the text of the Revisers.  How very far such an assumption is from the
true state of the case can easily be shown by a simple comparison of one
text with the other.  Let us take an example.  I suppose there are very
few who can entertain the slightest doubt that in Acts xii. 35, St. Luke
tells us that Barnabas and Saul returned _from_ Jerusalem after their
mission was over, and took with them (from Jerusalem) St. Mark.  Now what
is the reading of Westcott and Hort?--"to Jerusalem" with the Vatican
Manuscript, and a fair amount of external support.  We then turn at once
to the Revisers' text and find that _from_ ([Greek text]) is maintained,
in spite of the clever arguments which, in this case, can be urged for an
intrinsically improbable reading, and, most likely, were urged at the
time, as I observe that the Revisers have allowed the "to" to appear in a
margin.

I regret that I have never gone through the somewhat laborious process of
minutely comparing the Revisers' text with the text of Westcott and Hort,
but I cannot help thinking that the example I have chosen is a typical
one, and does show the sort of relations between the two texts, when what
a recent and competent writer (Dr. Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin)
considers to be the difficulties and anomalies and apparent perversities
in the text of Westcott and Hort are compared with the decisions of the
Revisers {59}.  There are, I believe, only sixty-four passages in the
whole revision, in which the text of the Revisers, when agreeing with the
text of Westcott and Hort, has not also the support of Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles.

I observe that the above-named writer expresses his satisfaction that the
Revised Version has not superseded the Authorised Version in our Churches
{60a}, and that things which were read at Rome in the second century may
still be read in our own Churches in the nineteenth century.  This,
perhaps, is a strong way of expressing his aversion to the text of
Westcott and Hort, but it is not perfectly clear that the Revisers' text
has "so closely" followed the authority of these two eminent critics as
to be open, on Dr. Salmon's part, to the same measure of aversion.  Until
more accurate evidence is forthcoming that the Revisers have shown in
their text the same sort of studied disregard of Western variations as is
plainly to be recognized in the text of Westcott and Hort, I can only
fall back on my persuasion, as one who has put to the vote these critical
questions very many times, that systematic neglect of Western authority
cannot fairly be brought home to the Revisers.  It is much to be
regretted then, that in the very opening chapter of his interesting
volume, Dr. Salmon roundly states that Westcott and Hort exercised a
"predominating influence" on their colleagues in the revision on the
question of various readings {60b}, and that "more than half of their
brother members of the Committee had given no special attention to the
subject."  Now, assuming that the word "Committee" has been here
accidentally used for the more usual term Company, I am forced to say
that both statements are really incorrect.  I was permitted by God's
mercy to be present at every meeting of the Company except two, and I can
distinctly say that I never observed any indication of this predominating
influence.  We knew well that our two eminent colleagues had devoted many
years of their lives to the great work on which they were engaged; and we
paid full deference to what they urged on each reading as it came before
us, but in the end we decided for ourselves.  For it must not be
forgotten that we had an eminent colleague (absent only eight times from
our 407 meetings) who took a very different view of the critical evidence
to that of Westcott and Hort, and never failed very fully, and often very
persuasively, to express it.  I am of course alluding to my old friend
Dr. Scrivener.  It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and
Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was
placed before the Company, and the Company enabled to decide on a full
knowledge of the critical facts and reasonings in reference to the
reading under consideration.

Now it is also not correct to say of the Company that finally decided the
question, that more than half "had given no special attention to the
subject."  If this refers to the matter _subsequently_ put forward by Dr.
Hort in the introductory volume to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,
to the clever and instructive genealogical method, and to the numberless
applications of it that have given their Greek Testament the pre-eminence
it deservedly holds--if this be the meaning of the Provost's estimate of
the critical knowledge of the Company, I should not have taken any
exception to the words.  But if "the subject" refers to the general
critical knowledge at the time when the Company came together, then I
must gently protest against an estimate of the general critical
capabilities of the Company that is, really and truly, incorrect.  All
but three or four are now resting with God, and among these twenty they
were not few who had a good and full knowledge of the New Testament
textual criticism of the generation that had just passed away.  Among
them were not only the three experts whom I have mentioned, but editors
of portions of the New Testament such as Bishop Lightfoot and others,
principals of large educational colleges both in England and Scotland,
and scholars like Dean Scott, who were known to take great interest in
questions of textual criticism.  A few of these might almost be
considered as definitely experts, but all taken together certainly made a
very competent body to whose independent judgement the settlement of
difficult critical questions could be safely committed.

And, as I venture to think, the text which has been constructed from
their decisions, their resultant text as it might be called, will show
that the Revisers' text is an independent text on which great reliance
can be placed.  It is the text which I always use myself in my general
reading of the New Testament, and I deliberately regard it as one of the
two best texts of the New Testament at present extant; the other being
the cheap and convenient edition of Professor Nestle, bearing the title
"Novum Testamentum Graece, cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris
manu scriptis collecto.  Stuttgart, 1898."  This edition is issued by the
Wurtemberg Bible Society, and will, as I hear, not improbably be adopted
by our own Bible Society as their Greek Testament of the future.

The reason why I prefer these two texts for the general reading of the
sacred volume is this, that they both have much in common with the text
of Westcott and Hort, but are free from those peculiarities and, I fear I
must add, perversities, which do here and there mark the text of that
justly celebrated edition.  To Doctors Westcott and Hort all faithful
students of the New Testament owe a debt of lasting gratitude which it is
impossible to overestimate.  Still, in the introductory volume by Dr.
Hort, assumptions have been made, and principles laid down, which in
several places have plainly affected the text, and led to the maintenance
of readings which, to many minds, it will seem really impossible to
accept.  An instance has been given above on page 58, and this is by no
means a solitary instance.

Having now shown fairly, I hope, and clearly the thoroughly independent
character of the text which I have called the Revisers' text, I will pass
onward, and show the careful manner in which it was constructed, and the
circumstances under which we have it in the continuous form in which it
has been published by the Press of the University of Oxford.

To do this, it will be necessary to refer to the rule under which we were
directed to carry out this portion of our responsible work.  We had two
things to do--to revise the Authorised Version, and also to revise under
certain specified limitations the Greek text from which the Authorised
Version was made; or, in other words, the fifth edition of Beza's Greek
Testament, published in the year 1698.  The rule under which this second
portion of our work was to be performed was as follows: "That the text to
be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating;
and [let this be noted] that when the text so adopted differs from that
from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated
in the margin."  Such was the rule in regard of the text, and such was
the instruction as to the mode of notifying any alterations that it might
have been found necessary to make.

Let us deal first with the direction as to notifying the alterations.
Now as it was soon found practically impossible to place all the
alterations in a margin which would certainly be needed for alternative
renderings, and for such matters as usually appear in a margin, we left
the University Presses to publish, in such manner as they might think
most convenient, the deviations from the Greek text presumed to underlie
the Authorised Version.  The Cambridge University Press entrusted to Dr.
Scrivener the publication of the Received Text with the alterations of
the Revisers placed at the foot of the page.  The Oxford University Press
adopted the more convenient method of letting the alterations form part
of the continuous text (the readings they displaced being at the foot of
the page), and entrusted the editing of the volume to Archdeacon Palmer
(one of our Company) who, as we know, performed the duty with great care
and accuracy.  Hence the existence of what I term throughout this address
as the Revisers' text.

We can now turn to the first part of the rule and describe in general
terms the mode of our procedure.  It differs very slightly from the mode
described in the preface of the Revisers of the Old Testament.  The verse
on which we were engaged was read by the Chairman.  The first question
asked was, whether there was any difference of reading in the Greek text
which required our consideration.  If there was none, we proceeded with
the second part of our work, the consideration of the rendering.  If
there was a reading in the Greek text that demanded our consideration it
was at once discussed, and commonly in the following manner.  Dr.
Scrivener stated briefly the authorities, whether manuscripts, ancient
versions, or patristic citations, of which details most of us were
already aware.  If the alteration was one for which the evidence was
patently and decidedly preponderating, it was at once adopted, and the
work went onward.  If, however, it was a case where it was doubtful
whether the evidence for the alteration _was_ thus decidedly
preponderating, then a discussion, often long, interesting, and
instructive, followed.  Dr. Hort, if present (and he was seldom absent;
only forty-five times out of the 407 meetings) always took part, and
finally the vote was taken, and the suggested alteration either adopted
or rejected.  If adopted, due note was taken by the secretary, and, if it
was thought a case for a margin, the competing reading was therein
specified.  If there was a plain difficulty at coming to a decision, and
the passage was one of real importance, the decision was not uncommonly
postponed to a subsequent meeting, and notice duly given to all the
members of the Company.  And so the great work went on to the end of the
first revision; the members of the Company acquiring more and more
knowledge and experience, and their decisions becoming more and more
judicial and trustworthy.

Few, I think, on reading this simple and truthful description, could fail
to place some confidence in results thus patiently and laboriously
arrived at.  Few, I think, could forbear a smile when they call to mind
the passionate vituperation which at first was lavished on the critical
efforts of the Revisers of the text that bears the scarcely correct name
of the _textus ab omnibus receptus_.

But what I have specified was only the first part of our responsible
work.  By the memoranda of agreement between the English Companies and
the American Committee, it had to be communicated to the American Company
of the Revisers of the Authorised Version of the New Testament, among
whom were some whose names were well and honorably known in connexion
with textual criticism.  Our work, with the American criticisms and
suggestions, had then to undergo the second revision.  The greater part
of the decisions relating to the text that were arrived at in the first
revision were accepted as final; but many were reopened at the second
revision, and the critical experience of the Company, necessarily
improved as it had been by the first revision, finally tested by the
two-thirds majority the reopened decisions which at the first revision
had been carried by simple majorities.  The results of this second
revision were then, in accordance with the agreement, communicated to the
American Company; but, in the sequel, as will be seen in the lists of the
final differences between ourselves and the American Company, the
critical differences were but few, and, so far as I can remember, of no
serious importance.

The critical labours of the Revisers did not however terminate with the
second revision.  The cases were many where the evidence for the readings
either adopted or retained in the text was only slightly stronger than
that of readings which were in competition with it.  Of this it was
obviously necessary that some final intimation should be given to the
reader, as the subsequent discovery of additional evidence might be held
by a competent critic to invalidate the right of the adopted reading to
hold its place in the text.  This intimation could only be given by a
final marginal note, for which, as we know, by the arrangement of the
University Presses (see p. 66), our page was now available.

These notes were objected to by one of our critics as quite unprecedented
additions; but it will be remembered that there are such notes in the
margin of the Authorised Version, though of course few in number
(thirty-five, according to Dr. Scrivener), textual criticism in 1611
being only in its infancy.

The necessity for the insertion of such notes was clearly shown in a
pamphlet that appeared shortly after the publication of the Revised
Version, and was written by two members of the Company.  The three cases
in which these notes appeared certainly to be required were thus stated
by the two writers: "First, when the text which seemed to underlie the
Authorised Version was condemned by a decided preponderance of evidence,
but yet was ancient in its character, and belonged to an early line of
transmission.  Secondly, when there were such clear tokens of corruption
in the reading on which the Authorised Version was based, or such a
consent of authority against it, that no one could seriously argue for
its retention, but it was not equally clear which of the other competing
readings had the best claim to occupy the vacant place.  In such a case
there was not, in truth, decidedly preponderant evidence, except against
the text of Beza, and some notice of this fact seemed to be required by
critical equity.  The third and last case was when the text which, as
represented in the Authorised Version, was retained because the competing
reading had not decidedly preponderant evidence (though the balance of
evidence was in its favour), and so could not under the rule be admitted.
In such a case again critical equity required a notice of the facts in
the margin."

This quotation, I may remark in passing, is not only useful in explaining
when and where marginal notes were demonstrably needed, but also in
showing how carefully such questions were considered, and how
conscientiously the rules were observed under which our work was to be
carried out.

Such were the textual labours of the Company.  They were based on, and
were the results of, the critical knowledge that had been slowly acquired
during the 115 years that separated the early suggestions of Bentley from
the pioneer text of Lachmann in 1831; and, in another generation, had
become expanded and matured in the later texts of Tischendorf, and still
more so in the trustworthy and consistent text of our countryman
Tregelles.  The labours of these three editors were well known to the
greater part of the Revisers and generally known to all; and it was on
these labours, and on the critical methods adopted by these great
editors, that our own text was principally formed.  We of course owed
much to the long labours of our two eminent colleagues, Dr. Westcott and
Dr. Hort.  Some of us know generally the principles on which they had
based their yet unpublished text, and were to some extent aware of the
manner in which they had grouped their critical authorities, and of the
genealogical method, which, under their expansion of it, has secured for
their text the widespread acceptance it has met with both at home and
abroad.

Of these things some of us had a competent knowledge, but the majority
had no special knowledge of the genealogical method.  They did know the
facts on which it was based--the ascertained trustworthiness of the
ancient authorities as compared with the later uncial, and the cursive
manuscripts, the general characteristics of these ancient authorities,
the alliances that were to be traced between some of them, and the
countries with which they were particularly connected.  This the majority
knew generally as a part of the largely increased knowledge which the
preceding forty or fifty years, and the labours of Lachmann, Tischendorf,
and (so far as he had then published) Tregelles, had placed at the
disposal of students of the Greek Testament.  It was on this general
knowledge, and not on any portions of a partly printed text, that the
decisions of the Company were based; these decisions, however, by the
very nature of the case and the use of common authorities, were
constantly in accordance with the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and
Tregelles, and so with the subsequently printed text of Westcott and
Hort.

Such a text, thus independently formed, and yet thus in harmony with the
results of the most tested critical researches of our times, has surely
great claims on our unreserved acceptance, and does justify us in
strongly pleading that a version of such a text, if faithfully executed,
should, for the very truth's sake, be publicly read in our Churches.

That the Revised Version has been faithfully executed, will I hope be
shown fully and clearly in the succeeding chapter.  For the present my
care has been to show that the text of which it is a version, and which I
have called the Revisers' Text because it underlies their revision, and,
as such, has been published by the Oxford University Press, is in my
judgement the best balanced text that has appeared in this country.  I
have mentioned with it (p. 63) the closely similar text of the well-known
Professor Nestle, but as I have not gone through the laborious task of
comparing the text, verse by verse, with that of the Revisers, I speak
only in reference to our own country.  I have compared the two texts in
several crucial and important passages--such for example as St. John i.
18--and have found them identical.  Bishop Westcott, I know, a short time
before his lamented death, expressed to the Committee of the Bible
Society his distinct approval of their adopting for future copies of the
Society's Greek Testament Professor Nestle's text, as published by the
Wurtemberg Bible Society.

I have now, I trust, fairly shown the independence of the Revisers' Text,
and have, not without reason, complained of my friend Provost Salmon's
estimate of its dependence on the text and earnestly exerted influence of
Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott.  Of course, as I have shown, there is, and
must be, much that is identical in the two texts; but, to fall back on
statistics, there are, I believe, more than two hundred places in which
the two texts differ, and in nearly all of them--if I may venture to
express my own personal opinion--the reading of the Revisers' Text is
critically to be preferred.  Most of these two hundred places seem to be
precisely places in which the principles adopted by Westcott and Hort
need some corrective modifications.  Greatly as I reverence the unwearied
patience, the exhaustive research, and the critical sagacity of these two
eminent, and now lamented, members of our former Company, I yet cannot
resist the conviction that Dr. Salmon in his interesting Criticism of the
Text of the New Testament has successfully indicated three or more
particulars which must cause some arrest in our final judgement on the
text of Westcott and Hort.

In the first case it cannot be denied that, in the introductory volume,
Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypotheses
into the realm of established facts.  Dr. Salmon specifies one, and that
a very far-reaching instance, in which, in the debatable question whether
there really was an authoritative revision of the so-called Syrian text
at about A.D. 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian revision as a _vera
causa_, as opposed to a hypothetical possibility.  This tendency in a
subject so complicated as that of textual criticism must be taken note of
by the student, and must introduce some element of hesitation in the
acceptance of confidently expressed decisions when the subject-matter may
still be very plainly debatable.

In the second place, in the really important matter of the nomenclature
of the ancient types of text which, since the days of Griesbach, and to
some extent before him, have been recognized by all critical scholars, it
does not seem possible to accept the titles of the fourfold division of
these families of manuscripts which have been adopted by Westcott and
Hort.  Griesbach, as is well known, adopted the terms Western,
Alexandrian, and Constantinopolitan, for which there is much to be said.
Westcott and Hort recognize four groups.  To the first and considerably
the largest they give the title of Syrian, answering to some extent to
the Constantinopolitan of Griesbach; to the second they continue the
title of Western; to the third they give the title of Alexandrian, though
of a numerically more restricted character than the Alexandrian of
Griesbach; to the fourth, an exceedingly small group, apparently
consisting of practically not more than two members, they give the title
of Neutral, as being free alike from Syrian, Western, and Alexandrian
characteristics.  On this Neutral family or group Westcott and Hort lay
the greatest critical stress, and in it they place the greatest reliance.
Such is their distribution, and such the names they give to the families
into which manuscripts are to be divided and grouped.

The objections to this arrangement and to this nomenclature are, as Dr.
Salmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and serious.  In the first
place, the title Syrian, though Dr. Salmon allows it to pass, is very
misleading, especially to the student.  It is liable to be confounded
with the term Syriac, with which it has not and is not intended to have
any special connexion, and it fails to convey the amplitude of the family
it designates.  If it is to be retained at all, it must be with the
prefix suggested by Dr. Schaff--the group being styled as the
Graeco-Syrian.  But this is of slight moment when compared with the
serious objections to the term Neutral, as this term certainly tends in
practice to give to two manuscripts or even, in some cases, to one of
them (the Codex Vaticanus), a preponderating supremacy which cannot be
properly conceded when authorities of a high character are found to be
ranged on the other side.  There are also other grave objections which
are convincingly put forward by Dr. Salmon in the chapter he has devoted
to the subject of the nomenclature of the two editors.

We shall be wise therefore if we cancel the term Neutral and use the term
Older Alexandrian, as distinguished from the later Alexandrian, and so
fall back on the threefold division of Alexandrian (earlier and later),
Graeco-Syrian, and Western, though for this last-mentioned term a more
expressive designation may perhaps hereafter be found.

The third drawback to the unqualified acceptance of the text of Westcott
and Hort is their continuous and studied disregard of Western
authorities; and this, notwithstanding that among these authorities are
included the singular and not unfrequently suggestive Codex Bezae--of
which Dr. Blass has lately made so remarkable a use--the Old Latin
Version, the Graeco-Latin manuscripts, and, to some extent, the Old
Syriac Version, all of them authorities to which the designation of
Western is commonly applied.  To this grave drawback Dr. Salmon has
devoted a chapter to which the attention of the student may very
profitably be directed.  Here I cannot enter into details, but of this I
am persuaded, that if there should be any fresh discovery of textual
authorities, it is by no means unlikely that they may be of a Western
character, and if so, that many decisions in the text of Westcott and
Hort will have to be modified by some editor of the future.  At any rate,
taking the critical evidence as now we find it, we cannot but feel that
Dr. Salmon has made out his case, and that in the edition of which now we
are speaking there has been an undue, and even a contemptuous, disregard
of Western authorities.

Here I must close this address, yet not without expressing the hope that
I may have induced some of you, my Reverend Brethren, to look into these
things for yourselves.  Do not be deterred by the thought that to do so
you must read widely and consult many authorities.  This is really not
necessary for the acquiring of an intelligent interest in the text of the
Greek Testament.  With a good edition (with appended critical
authorities), whether that of Tischendorf or of Tregelles, and with
guidance such as that which you will find in the compendious _Companion
to the Greek Testament_ of Dr. Schaff, you will be able to begin, and
when you have seriously begun, you will not be, I am persuaded, very
likely to leave off.




ADDRESS IV
NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS


From the text we now turn to the renderings, and to the general
principles that were followed, both in the Old and in the New Testament.
The revision of the English text was in each case subject to the same
general rule, viz. "To introduce as few alterations as possible into the
Text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness"; but,
owing to the great difference between the two languages, the Hebrew and
the Greek, the application of the rule was necessarily different, and the
results not easily comparable the one with the other.

It will be best then to consider the renderings in the two Testaments
separately, and to form the best estimate we can of their character and
of their subordination to the general rule, with due regard to the widely
different nature of the structure and grammatical principles of the two
languages through which God has been pleased to reveal His truth to the
children of men.

I.  We begin then with the Revised Version of the Old Testament, and
naturally turn for general guidance to the Preface of those who were
engaged in the long, diversified, and responsible work.  Their general
principles as to departures from the Authorised Version would appear to
be included in the following clearly-specified particulars.  They
departed from the Authorised Version (_a_) where they did not agree with
it as to the meaning or construction of a word or sentence; (_b_) where
it was necessary, for the sake of uniformity, to render such parallel
passages as were identical in Hebrew by the same English words; (_c_)
where the English of the Authorised Version was liable to be
misunderstood by reason of its being archaic or obscure; (_d_) where the
rendering of an earlier English version seemed preferable; and (_e_)
where, by an apparently slight change, it was possible to bring out more
fully the meaning of a passage of which the translation was substantially
accurate.

These principles, which I have been careful to specify in the exact words
of the Revisers, will appear to every impartial reader to be fully in
harmony with the principle of faithfulness; and will be found--if an
outsider may presume to make a passing comment--to have been carried out
with pervasive consistency and uniformity.

The Revisers further notice certain particulars of which the general
reader should take full note, so much of the random criticisms of the
revised text (especially in the New Testament) having been due to a
complete disregard in each case of the Preface, and of the reasons given
for changes which long experience had shown to be both reasonable and
necessary.

The first particular is the important question of the rendering of the
word "JEHOVAH."  Here the Revisers have thought it advisable to follow
the usage of the Authorised Version, and not to insert the word uniformly
in place of "LORD" or "GOD," which words when printed in small capitals
represent the words substituted by Jewish custom for the ineffable Name
according to the vowel points by which it is distinguished.  To this
usage the Revisers have steadily adhered with the exception of a very few
passages in which the introduction of a proper name seemed to be
required.  In this grave matter, as we all probably know, the American
Company has expressed its dissent from the decision of the English
Company, and has adopted the proper name wherever it occurs in the Hebrew
text for "the LORD" and "GOD."  Most English readers will agree with our
Revisers.  It may indeed be said, now that we can read the American text
continuously, that there certainly are many passages in which the proper
name seems to come upon eye or ear with a serious and appropriate force;
still the reverence with which we are accustomed to treat what the
Revisers speak of as "the ineffable Name" will lead most of us to
sacrifice the passages, where the blessed name may have an impressive
force, to the reverential uniformity of our Authorised Version, and to
the latent fear that frequent iteration might derogate from the solemnity
with which we instinctively clothe the ever-blessed name of Almighty God.

The next particular relates to terms of natural history.  Here changes
have only been made where it was certain that the Authorised Version was
incorrect, and highly probable that the word substituted was right.
Where doubt existed, the text was left unchanged, but the alternative
word was placed in the margin.  In regard of other terms, of which the
old rendering was certainly wrong, as in the case of the Hebrew term
_Asherah_ (probably the wooden symbol of a goddess), the Revisers have
used the word, whether in the singular or plural, as a proper name.  In
the case of the Hebrew term "Sheol" (corresponding to the Greek term
"Hades"), variously rendered in the Authorised Version by the words
"grave," "pit," and "hell," the Revisers have adopted in the historical
books the first or second words with a marginal note, "Heb. _Sheol_," but
in the poetical books they have reversed this arrangement.  The American
Revisers, on the contrary, specify that in all cases where the word
occurs in the Hebrew text they place it unchanged in the English text,
and without any margin.  The case is a difficult one, but the English
arrangement is to be preferred, as the reader would not so plainly need a
preliminary explanation.

The last case that it here seems necessary to allude to is the change
everywhere of the words "the tabernacle of the congregation" into "the
tent of meeting," as the former words convey an entirely wrong sense.
These and the use of several other terms are carefully noted and
explained by the Revisers, and will, I hope, induce every careful reader
of their revision to make it his duty to study their prefatory words.
The almost unavoidable differences between them and the American
Revisers, as to our own language, are alluded to by them in terms both
friendly and wise, and may be considered fully to express the sentiments
of the New Testament Company, by whom the subject is less precisely
alluded to.

In passing from the Preface to the great work which it introduces, I feel
the greatest difficulty, as a member of a different Company, in making
more than a few very general comments.  In fact, I should scarcely have
ventured to do even this, had I not met with a small but very instructive
volume on the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament
written by one of the American Revisers, and published at New York some
fifteen or sixteen years ago.  The volume is entitled--perhaps with
excusable brevity--_A Companion to the Revised Old Testament_.  The
writer was Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch
Church of New York, from whose preface I learn that he was the only
pastor in the Company, the others being professors in theological
seminaries, and representing seven different denominations and nine
different institutions.  The book is written with great modesty, and as
far as I can judge, with a good working knowledge of Hebrew.  The writer
disclaims in it the position of speaking in any degree for the Company of
which he was a member, but mentions that his undertaking was approved of
by his colleagues, and received the assistance, more or less, of all of
them.  He was a member of the Company during the last ten years of its
labours.

I can recommend this useful volume to any student of the Old Testament
who is desirous to see a selected list of the changes made by the
Revisers in the Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetical Books, and
Prophetical Books.  These changes are given in four chapters, and in most
cases are accompanied by explanatory comments, which from their tenor
often seem to be reminiscences of corporate discussion.  I mention these
particulars as I am not aware of any similar book on the Old Testament
written by any one of the English Company.  If there is such a book, I do
sincerely hope the writer will forgive me for not having been so
fortunate as to meet with it.

The remaining comments I shall venture to make on the rendering of the
Old Testament will rest on the general knowledge I have acquired of this
carefully-executed and conservative revision, and on some consideration
of the many illustrations which Dr. Chambers has selected in his
interesting manual.  The impression that has long been left on my mind by
the serious reading of the Old Testament in the Revised Version is that
not nearly enough has been said of the value of the changes that have
been made, and of the strong argument they furnish for the reading of the
Revision in the public services of the Church.  Let any serious person
read the Book of Job with the two English versions in parallel columns,
and form a sober opinion on the comparison--his judgement I am confident
will be, that if the Revision of this Book be a fair sample of the
Revision generally, our congregations have a just right to claim that the
Revised Version of the Old Testament should be publicly read in their
churches.  Ours is a Bible-loving country, and the English Bible in its
most correct form can never be rightly withheld from our public
ministrations.

I shall now close this portion of the present Address with a few comments
on the four parts of the Revision to which I have already alluded--the
Pentateuch, and the Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical Books of the
Old Testament.

What the careful reader of Genesis will not fail to observe is the number
of passages in which comparatively small alterations give a new light to
details of the sacred narrative which, in general reading, are commonly
completely overlooked.  A new colouring, so to speak, is given to the
whole, and rectifications of prevailing conceptions not unfrequently
introduced, either in the text or, as often happens, by means of the
margin, where they could hardly have been anticipated.  The prophecy of
Jacob as to the future of his children (chap. xlix) will supply an
instance.  In the character of Reuben few of us would understand more
than general unsteadiness and changefulness in purpose and in act, but a
glance at the margin will show that impulse and excitability were plainly
elements in his nature which led him into the grievous and hateful sin
for which his father deposed him from the excellency of a first-born.

What has been said of the Book of Genesis is equally applicable to the
remainder of the Pentateuch.  The object throughout is elucidation, not
simply correction of errors but removal of obscurity, if not by changes
introduced into the printed text, yet certainly always by the aid of the
margin; as, for example, in the somewhat difficult passage of Exodus
xvii. 16, where really, it would seem, that the margin might rightly have
had its place in the text.  Sometimes the correction of what might seem
trivial error, as in Exodus xxxiv. 33, gives an intelligible view of the
whole details of the circumstance specified.  Moses put on the veil after
he had ceased speaking with them.  While he was speaking to them he was
speaking as God's representative.  In Numbers xi. 25 the correction of a
mistranslation removes what might otherwise lead to a very grave
misconception, viz. that the gift of prophecy was continuous in the case
of the whole elderhood.  In the chapters relating to Balaam,
independently of the alterations that are made in the language of his
remarkable utterances, the mere fact of their being arranged rhythmically
could not fail to cause the public reader, almost unconsciously, to
change his tone of voice, and to make the reading of the prophecy more
distinct and impressive.  Among many useful changes in Deuteronomy one
may certainly be noticed (chap. xx. 19), in which the obscure and
difficult clause in regard of the tree in the neighbourhood of the
besieged city is made at any rate intelligible.

In the historical books attention may be particularly called to the Song
of Deborah and Barak, in which there are several important and
elucidatory corrections, and in which the rhythmic arrangement will be
felt to bear force and impressiveness both to reader and to hearer.  In
the remaining Books changes will be found fewer in number and less
striking; but occasionally, as for example in 1 Kings xx. 27, we come
across changes that startle us by their unlooked-for character, but
which, if correct, add a deeper degradation to the outpoured blood of
Ahab in the pool of Samaria.

Of the poetical Books, I have already alluded to the Book of Job and to
the high character of the Revision.  The changes in this noble poem are
many, and were especially needed, for the rendering of the Book of Job
has always been felt to be one of the weakest portions of the great work
of the Revisers of 1611.  Illustrations I am unable to give, in a cursory
notice like the present, but I may again press the Revisers' version of
this deeply interesting Book on the serious attention of every earnest
student of the Old Testament.

It is difficult to say much on the Revised Version of the Book of Psalms,
as Coverdale's Version, as we have it in our Prayer Book, so completely
occupies the foreground of memory and devotional interest, that I fear
comparatively few study the Bible Version or the careful and conservative
work of the Revisers.  This Revision, however, of the version of the Book
of Psalms deserves more attention than it appears to have received.  Not
only will the faithful reader find in it the necessary corrections of the
version of 1611, but clear guidance as to the meaning of the sometimes
utterly unintelligible renderings of the version of the Great Bible which
still holds its place in our Prayer Books.  To take two examples: let the
reader look at the Authorised Version and Prayer Book Version of Psalm
lxviii. 16, and of lxxxiv. 5, 6, and contrast with both the rendering of
the Revised Version.  This last-mentioned rendering will be found, as I
have said, to correct the Authorised Version, and (especially in the
second passage) to remove what is unintelligible in the Prayer Book
version.  It may thus be used by the Prayer Book reader of the Psalms as
a ready and easily accessible means of arriving at the real meaning of
the many ambiguities and obscurities which long familiarity with the
Prayer Book Version has led him to pass over without any particular
notice.  The revision of the Prayer Book Version has been long felt to be
a very real necessity.  To read and to hear read in the daily services of
the Church what, in parts, cannot be understood can never be spiritually
good for reader or hearer.  And yet, such is the really devout
conservatism of the bulk of our congregations, that though a careful
revision, sympathetically executed, has been strongly urged by some of
our most earnest scholars and divines, it is more than doubtful whether
such a revision ever will be carried out.  If this be so, it only remains
for us so to encourage, in our schools and in our Bible classes, the
efficient explanatory help of the Revised Version.  If this is steadily
done, nearly all that is at present obscure or unintelligible in the
Prayer Book Version will no longer remain so to the greater part of our
worshippers.

Of the remaining Poetical Books the revision of the Authorised Version of
the Song of Solomon must be specially noticed.  In the common version the
dramatic element is almost entirely lost, the paragraphs are imperfectly
noted, and obscurities not a few the inevitable consequence.  In a large
degree these serious imperfections are removed, and the whole tenor of
this exquisite poem made clear to the general reader.  The margin will
show the great care bestowed on the poem by the Revisers; and the fewness
and trifling nature of the changes maintained by the American Company
will also show, in a confessedly difficult Book, the somewhat remarkable
amount of the agreement between the two Companies.  On the Prophetical
Books I do not feel qualified to speak except in very general terms; and
for illustrations must refer the reader to the large list of the
corrected renderings, especially of the prophecy of Isaiah, in the useful
work of Dr. Chambers, who has devoted at least eleven pages to the
details of the Revisers' work on the Evangelist of the Old Covenant.  The
impression which the consideration of these details leaves on the mind of
the reader will be, I am confident, the same as that which is I believe
felt by all professed Hebrew scholars who have examined the version, viz.
that it is not only faithful and thorough, but often rises to a very high
level of poetic utterance.  Let any one read aloud in the Revised Version
the well-known passage, chap. xiv. 12-23, already nobly rendered in the
Old Version, and ask himself if the seemingly slight and trivial changes
have not maintained this splendid utterance at a uniform height of
sustained and eloquent vigour.

In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the changes are less striking
and noticeable, not however from any diminished care in the work of
revision, but from the tenor of the prophecies being less familiar to the
general reader.  Four pages of instructive illustrations are supplied by
Dr. Chambers in the case of each of the two prophecies.  The more
noticeable changes in Daniel and Hosea are also specified by Dr.
Chambers, but the remainder of the minor prophets, with perhaps the
exception of Habakkuk, are passed over with but little illustrative
notice.  A very slight inspection however of these difficult prophecies
will certainly show two things--first, that the Revisers of 1611 did
their work in this portion of Holy Scripture less successfully than
elsewhere; secondly, that the English and American Revisers--between whom
the differences are here noticeably very few--laboured unitedly and
successfully in keeping their revision of the preceding version of these
prophecies fully up to the high level of the rest of their work.

II.  I now pass onward to the consideration of the renderings in the
Revised Version of the New Testament.

The object and purpose of the consideration will be exactly the same, as
in the foregoing pages, to show the faithful thoroughness of the
Revision, but the manner of showing this will be somewhat different to
the method I have adopted in the foregoing portion of this Address.  I
shall not now bring before you examples of the faithful and suggestive
accuracy of the revision, for to do this adequately would far exceed the
limits of these Addresses; and further, if done would far fall short of
the instructive volume of varied and admirably arranged illustrations
written only four years ago by a member of the Company {96}, now, alas,
no longer with us, of which I shall speak fully in my next Address.

What I shall now do will be to show that the principles on which the
version of the New Testament was based have been in no degree affected by
the copious literature connected with the language of the Greek Testament
and its historical position which has appeared since the Revision was
completed.  It is only quite lately that the Revisers have been
represented as being insufficiently acquainted, in several particulars,
with the Greek of the New Testament, and in a word, being twenty years
behind what is now known on the subject {97}.  Such charges are easily
made, and may at first sight seem very plausible, as the last fifteen or
twenty years have brought with them an amount of research in the language
of the Greek Testament which might be thought to antiquate some results
of the Revision, and to affect to some extent the long labours of those
who took part in it.  The whole subject then must be fairly considered,
especially in such an Address as the present, in which the object is to
set forth the desirableness and rightfulness of using the version in the
public services of the Church.

But first a few preliminary comments must be made on the manner and
principles in which the changes of rendering have been introduced into
the venerable Version which was intrusted to us to be revised.

The foremost principle to be alluded to is the one to which we adhered
steadily and persistently during the whole ten years of our labour--the
principle of faithfulness to the original language in which it pleased
Almighty God that His saving truth should be revealed to the children of
men.  As the lamented Bishop of Durham says most truly and forcibly in
his instructive "Lessons on the Revised Version of the New Testament
{98a};" "Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was the
central aim of the Revisers {98b}."  Faithfulness, but to what?
Certainly not to "the sense and spirit of the original {98b}," as our
critics contended must have been meant by the rule,--but to the original
in its plain grammatical meaning as elicited by accurate interpretation.
This I can confidently state was the intended meaning of the word when it
appeared in the draft rule that was submitted to the Committee of
Convocation.  So it was understood by them; and so, I may add, it was
understood by the Company, because I can clearly remember a very full
discussion on the true meaning of the word at one of the early meetings
of the Company.  Some alteration had been proposed in the rendering of
the Greek to which objection was made that it did not come under the rule
and principle of faithfulness.  This led to a general, and, as it proved,
a final discussion.  Bishop Lightfoot, I remember, took an earnest part
in it.  He contended that our revision must be a true and thorough one;
that such a meeting as ours could not be assembled for many years to
come, and that if the rendering was plainly more accurate and more true
to the original, it ought not to be put aside as incompatible with some
supposed aspect of the rule of faithfulness.  Proposals were often set
aside without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not "worth
while" to make them, and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of a
familiar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal being
withdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, and
not from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness.  If the
proposal was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and the
matter authoritatively settled.

The contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisers
deliberately violated the principles under which the work was committed
to them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, entirely
erroneous.  I have dwelt upon this matter because when properly
understood it clears away more than half of the objections that have been
urged against our Revision.  Of the remainder I cannot but agree with
good Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision--and the
criticisms were of every form and kind "pedantry, spiritless literality,
irritating triviality, destroyed rhythm," and so forth--no criticism ever
came upon us by surprise.  The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heard
in the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their conclusions they
have heard since; and he goes on to say that no restatement of old
arguments had in the least degree shaken his confidence in the general
results.  Such words from one now, alas, no longer with us, but whose
memory we cherish as one of the most wide-minded as well as truth-seeking
of the biblical scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure the
partially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its real
trustworthiness and fidelity.  But we must not confine our attention
simply to the renderings that hold a place in the text of the Revised
Version.  We must take into our consideration a very instructive portion
of the work of the Revisers which is, I fear, utterly neglected by the
general reader--the alternative readings and renderings that hold a place
in the margin, and form an integral portion of the Revision.  Though we
are now more particularly considering the renderings, I include here the
marginal readings, as the relation of the margins to the Version could
hardly be fully specified without taking into consideration the margin in
its entirety.  As readers of the Preface to the New Testament (very few,
I fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly remember,
alternative readings and renderings were prohibited in the case of the
Authorised Version, but, as we know, the prohibition was completely
disregarded, some thirty-five notes referring to readings, and probably
more than five hundred to alternative renderings.  In the fundamental
rules of Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course was
prescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on.

These alternative readings and renderings must be carefully considered,
as in the case of renderings much light is often thrown on the true
interpretation of the passage, especially in the more difficult portions
of the New Testament.  Their relation however to the actually accepted
Version must not be exaggerated, either in reference to readings or
renderings.  I will make plain what I mean by an example.  Dr. Westcott
specifies a reading of importance in John i. 18 where he states that the
reading in the margin ("God only begotten") did in point of fact express
the opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in the
text of the Version because it failed to secure the two-thirds majority
of those present at the final revision.  This, perhaps, makes a little
too much of an acceptance at a somewhat early period of the labours of
the Company.  So far as I remember the case, the somewhat startling
alteration was accepted at the first revision (when the decision was to
be by simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of course
continued up to the second revision.  At that revision the then text and
the then margin changed places.  Dr. Hort, I am well aware, published an
important pamphlet on the subject, but I have no remembrance that the
first decision on the reading was alluded to, either at the second
revision or afterwards, in any exceptional manner.  It did but share the
fate of numberless alterations at the first revision that were not
finally confirmed.

The American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the reading in
question with their English brethren; and the same too is the judgement
of Professor Nestle in his carefully edited Greek Testament to which I
have already referred.

I have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am especially
desirous to encourage a far greater attention to the margin than it has
hitherto received, I am equally desirous that the margin should not be
elevated above its real position.  That position is one of subordination
to the version actually adopted, whether when maintaining the older form
or changing it.  It expresses the judgement of a legal, if not also of a
numerical, minority, and, in the case of difficult passages (as in Rom.
ix. 4), the judgement of groups which the Company, as a whole, deemed
worthy of being recorded.  But, not only should the margin thus be
considered, but the readings and renderings preferred by the American
Committee, which will often be found suggestive and helpful.  These, as
we know, are now incorporated in the American Standard Edition of the
Revised Bible; and the result, I fear, will be that the hitherto familiar
Appendix will disappear from the smaller English editions of the Revised
Version of the Old and New Testament.  It is perhaps inevitable, but it
will be a real loss.  All I can hope is that in some specified English
editions of the Old and New Testament each Appendix will regularly be
maintained, and that this token of the happy union of England and America
in the blessed work of revising their common version of God's holy Word
will thus be preserved to the end.

But we must now pass onward to considerations very closely affecting the
renderings of the Revised Version of the Greek Testament.

I have already said that very recently a new and unexpected charge has
been brought against the Revisers of the Authorised Version.  And the
charge is no less than this, that the Revisers were ignorant in several
important particulars of the language from which the version was
originally made that they were appointed to revise.

Now in meeting a charge of this nature, in which we may certainly notice
that want of considerate intelligence which marks much of the criticism
that has been directed against our revision, it seems always best when
dealing with a competent scholar who does not give in detail examples on
which the criticism rests, to try and understand his point of view and
the general reasons for his unfavourable pronouncement.  And in this case
I do not think it difficult to perceive that the imputation of ignorance
on the part of the Revisers has arisen from an exaggerated estimate of
the additions to our knowledge of New Testament Greek which have
accumulated during the twenty years that have passed away since the
Revision was completed.  If this be a correct, as it is certainly a
charitable, estimate of the circumstances under which ignorance has been
imputed to us in respect of several matters relating to the Greek on
which we were engaged, let us now leave our critics, and deal with these
reasonable questions.  First, what was the general knowledge, on the part
of the Revisers, of the character and peculiarities of New Testament
Greek?  Secondly, what is the amount of the knowledge relative to New
Testament Greek that has been acquired since the publication of the
revision? and thirdly, to what extent does this recently acquired
knowledge affect the correctness and fidelity of the renderings that have
been adopted by the Revisers?  If these three questions are plainly
answered we shall have dealt fully and fairly with the doubts that have
been expressed or implied as to the correctness of the revision.

First, then, as to the general knowledge which the revisers had of the
character and peculiarities of the Greek of the New Testament.

This question could not perhaps be more fairly and correctly dealt with
than by Bishop Westcott in the opening words of his chapter on Exactness
in Grammatical Detail, in the valuable work to which I have already
referred.  What he states probably expresses very exactly the general
view taken by the great majority, if not by all, of the Revisers in
regard of the Greek of the New Testament.  What the Bishop says of the
language is this: "that it is marked by unique characteristics.  It is
separated very clearly, both in general vocabulary and in construction,
from the language of the LXX, the Greek Version of the Old Testament,
which was its preparation, and from the Greek of the Fathers which was
its development {106}."

If we accept this as a correct statement of the general knowledge of the
Revisers as to the language of the Greek Testament, we naturally ask
further, on what did they rely for the correct interpretation of it.  The
answer can readily be given, and it is this: Besides their general
knowledge of Greek which, in the case of the large majority, was very
great, their knowledge of New Testament Greek was distinctly influenced
by the grammatical views of Professor Winer, of whose valuable grammar of
the Greek Testament one of our Company, as I have mentioned in my first
Address, had been a well-known and successful translator.  Though his
name was not very frequently brought up in our discussions, the influence
his grammar exerted among us, directly and indirectly, was certainly
great; but it went no further than grammatical details.  His obvious
gravitation to the idea of New Testament Greek forming a sort of separate
department of its own probably never was shared, to any perceptible
extent, by any one of us.  We did not enter very far into these matters.
We knew by every day's working experience that New Testament Greek
differed to some extent from the Greek to which we had been accustomed,
and from the Septuagint Greek to which from time to time we referred.
But further than this we did not go, nor care to go.  We had quite enough
on our hands.  We had a very difficult task to perform, we had to revise
under prescribed conditions a version which needed revision almost in
every verse, and we had no time to enter into questions that did not then
appear to bear directly on our engrossing and responsible work.

But now it must be distinctly admitted that recent investigation and, to
a certain extent, recent discoveries have cast so much new light on New
Testament Greek that it becomes a positive duty to take into
consideration what has been disclosed to us by the labours of the last
fifteen years as to New Testament Greek, and then fairly to face the
question whether the particular labours of the Revisers have been
seriously affected by it.  Let us bear in mind, however, that it may be
quite possible that a largely increased knowledge of the position which
what used to be called Biblical Greek now occupies may be clearly
recognized, and yet only comparatively few changes necessitated by it in
syntactic details and renderings.  But let us not anticipate.  What we
have now to do is to ascertain the nature and amount of the disclosures
and new knowledge to which I have alluded.

This may be briefly stated as emanating from a very large amount of
recent literature on post-classical Greek, and from a careful and
scientific investigation of the transition from the earlier
post-classical to the later, and thence to the modern Greek of the
present time.  Such an investigation, illustrated as it has been by the
voluminous collection of the Inscriptions, and the already large and
growing collection of the Papyri, has thrown indirectly considerable
light on New Testament Greek, and has also called out three works, each
of a very important character, and posterior to the completion of the
Revision, which deal directly with the Greek of the New Testament.  These
three works I will now specify.

The first, which is still in progress, and has not, I think, yet received
a translator, is the singularly accurate, and in parts corrective,
edition of Winer's "Grammar" by Prof. Schmiedel.  The portion on the
article is generally recognized as of great value and importance.

The second work is the now well-translated "Bible Studies" of Dr.
Deissmann of Heidelberg {109}.  This remarkable work, of which the full
title is "Contributions, chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions, to the
History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic
Judaism, and Primitive Christianity," contains not only a clear estimate
of the nature of New Testament Greek, but also a large and instructive
vocabulary of about 160 words and expressions in the New Testament, most
of which receive in varying degrees illustration from the Papyri, and
other approximately contemporary sources.  It must be noted, however,
that the writer himself specifies that his investigations "have been, in
part, arranged on a plan which is polemical {110a}."  This avowal must,
to some extent, affect our full acceptance of all the results arrived at
in this striking and laborious work.

The third work is a "Grammar of New Testament Greek" by the well-known
and distinguished scholar, Dr. Blass, and is deserving of the fullest
attention from every earnest student of the Greek Testament.  It has been
excellently translated by Mr. St. John Thackeray, of the Education
Department {110b}.  It is really hardly possible to speak too highly of
this helpful and valuable work.  Its value consists in this--that it has
been written, on the one hand, by an accomplished classical scholar, and,
on the other hand, by one who is thoroughly acquainted with the
investigations of the last fifteen years.  As his Introduction clearly
shows, he fully accepts the estimate that is now generally entertained of
the Greek of the New Testament, viz. that it is no isolated production,
as regards language, that had no historic relation to the Greek of the
past or of the future.  It was not, to any great extent, derived from the
Greek _translations_ of the Old Testament--often, as Dr. Blass says,
slavishly literal--nor from the literary language of the time, but was
the spoken Greek of the age to which it belonged, modified by the
position and education of the speaker, and also to some extent, though by
no means to any large extent, by the Semitic element which, from time to
time, discloses itself in the language of the inspired writers.  This
last-written epithet, which I wittingly introduce, must not be lost sight
of by the Christian student.

Dr. Blass quite admits that the language of the Greek Testament may be
rightly treated in connexion with the discoveries in Egypt furnished by
the Papyri; but he has also properly maintained elsewhere {111} that the
books of the New Testament form a special group _to be primarily
explained by itself_.  Greatly as we are indebted to Dr. Deissmann for
his illustrations, especially in regard of vocabulary, we must read with
serious caution, and watch all attempts to make Inscriptions or Papyri do
the work of an interpretation of the inner meaning of God's Holy Word
which belongs to another realm, and to the self-explanations which are
vouchsafed to us in the reverent study of the Book--not of Humanity (as
Deissmann speaks of the New Testament) {112} but of--Life.

I have now probably dealt sufficiently with the second of the three
questions which I have put forward for our consideration.  I have stated
the general substance of the knowledge which has been permitted to come
to us since the revision was completed.  I now pass onward to the third
and most difficult question equitably to answer, "To what extent does
this newly-acquired knowledge affect the correctness and fidelity of the
revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament?"  It is easy
enough to speak of "ignorance" on the part of the Revisers, especially
after what I have specified in the answer to the question on which we
have just been meditating; but the real and practical question is this,
"If the Revisers had all this knowledge when they were engaged on their
work, would it have materially affected their revision?"

To this more limited form of the question I feel no difficulty in
replying, that I am fully and firmly persuaded that it would _not_ have
materially affected the revision; and my grounds for returning this
answer depend on these two considerations: first, that the full knowledge
which some of us had of Winer's Grammar, and the general knowledge that
was possessed of it by the majority, certainly enabled us to realize that
the Greek on which we were engaged, while retaining very many elements of
what was classical, had in it also not only many signs of post-classical
Greek, but even of usages which we now know belong to later developments.
These later developments, all of which are, to some extent, to be
recognized in the Greek Testament, such as the disappearance of the
optative, the use of [Greek text] with the subjunctive in the place of
the infinitive, the displacement of [Greek text], the interchange of
[Greek text] and [Greek text], of [Greek text] and [Greek text], the use
of compound forms without any corresponding increase of meaning, the
extended usage of the aorist, the wider sphere of the accusative, and
many similar indications of later Greek--all these were so far known to
us as to exercise a cautionary influence on our revision, and to prevent
us overpressing the meaning of words and forms that had lost their
original definiteness.

My second reason for the answer I have given to the question is based on
the accumulating experience we were acquiring in our ten years of labour,
and our instinctive avoidance of renderings which in appearance might be
precise, but did in reality exaggerate the plain meaning intended by the
Greek that we were rendering.  Sometimes, but only rarely, we fell into
this excusable form of over-rendering.  Perhaps the concluding words of
Mark xiv. 65 will supply an example.  At any rate, the view taken by
Blass {114} would seem to suggest a less literal form of translation.

When I leave the limited form of answer, and face the broad and general
question of the extent to which our recently-acquired knowledge affects
the correctness and fidelity of the revision, I can only give an answer
founded on an examination of numerous passages in which I have compared
the comments of Dr. Blass in his Grammar, and of Dr. Deissmann in his
"Bible Studies with the renderings of the Revisers."  And the answer is
this, that the number of cases in which any change could reasonably be
required has been so small, so very small, that the charge of any real
ignorance, on the part of the Revisers, of the Greek on which they were
engaged, must be dismissed as utterly and entirely exaggerated.  We have
now acquired an increased knowledge of the character of the Greek of the
New Testament, and of the place it holds in the historical transition of
the language from the earlier post-classical to the later developments of
the language, but this knowledge, interesting and instructive as it may
be, leaves the principles of correctly translating it practically intact.
In this latter process we must deal with the language of the Greek
Testament as we would deal with the language of any other Greek book, and
make the book, as far as we have the means of doing so, its own
interpreter.

Having thus shown in broad and general terms, as far as I have been able
to do so, that we may still, notwithstanding the twenty years that have
passed away, regard the Revised Version of the Greek Testament as a
faithfully executed revision, and its renderings such as may be accepted
with full Christian confidence, I now turn to the easier, but not less
necessary, duty of bringing before you some considerations why this
Version and, with it, the Revised Version of the Old Testament, should be
regularly used in the public services of our Mother Church.




ADDRESS V.
PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION.


We have now traced the external, and to some extent the internal history
of Revision from the time, some fifty years ago, when it began to occupy
the thoughts of scholars and divines, down to the present day.

We have seen the steady advance in Church opinion as to its necessity;
its earliest manifestations, and the silent progress from what was
tentative and provisional to authoritative recognition, and to carefully
formulated procedures under the high and venerable sanction of the two
Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury.  We have further seen how the
movement extended to America, and how some of the best scholars and
divines of that Christian country co-operated with those of our own
country in the arduous and responsible work of revising their common
heritage, the Version of God's most Holy Word, as set forth by authority
290 years ago.  We have noted too, that in this work not less than one
hundred scholars and divines were engaged--for fourteen years in the case
of the Old Testament, and for ten years in the case of the New
Testament--and that this long period of labour and study was marked by
regularly appointed and faithfully kept times of meeting, and by the
interchange with the Revisers on the other side of the Atlantic of
successive portions of the work, until the whole was completed.

And this Revision, as we have seen, has included a full consideration of
the text of the original languages as well as of the renderings.  In the
Old Testament, adherence to the Massorite Text has left only a very
limited number of passages in which consideration of the ancient Version
was deemed to be necessary; but, in the New Testament, as we well know,
questions of textual criticism occupied a large portion of the time and
attention of the Revisers, both here and in America.  In regard of the
renderings, we have seen the care and thoroughness with which the
Revision was carried out, the marginal notes in both Testaments showing
convincingly, especially on the more difficult passages, how every
rendering that could be regarded as in any degree probable received its
full share of consideration.  Finally, it must not be forgotten that, in
the case of the New Testament, the serious question whether the research
in New Testament Greek since the Revision was completed has, to any
appreciable extent, affected the suggestive light and truth of really
innumerable corrections and changes--this too has been faced, and the
charge fairly met, that just conclusions drawn from the true nature of
the Greek, gravely affecting interpretation, have been ignored by the
Revisers.

So much of the latter part of the last Address has been taken up with
this necessary duty of showing that the changes in renderings cannot be
invalidated by _a priori_ considerations founded on the alleged
insufficient knowledge, on the part of the Revisers, of the nature of the
Greek they were translating, that I have not cited examples of the
light-giving and often serious nature of the changes made in the
Authorised Version.  This I regretted at the time; but a little
consideration showed me that it was much better for the cause in which I
am engaged that I should refer you for illustrations of the nature and
value of the renderings in the Revised Version of the New Testament to a
singularly fruitful and helpful volume, published only four years ago,
and so subsequently to the researches in New Testament Greek of which I
have spoken.  This volume was written by a member of our Company--now,
alas, no longer with us--whose knowledge of the Greek language, whether
of earlier or of later date, no one could possibly doubt.  I allude to
the "Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament," by Dr.
Westcott, a volume that has not yet received the full attention which its
remarkable merits abundantly claim, for it.

Of this volume I shall speak more fully later on in this Address, my
object now being to set forth the desirableness, I might even say the
duty, of using the Revised Version in the Public Services of the Church.

After the summary I have just given of the external history of this great
movement, does not the question come home to us, Why has all this been
done?  For what have the hundred labourers in the great work freely given
their time and their energies during the four and twenty years (speaking
collectively) that were spent on the work?  For what did the venerable
Convocation of our Province give the weight of its sanction and authority
when it drew up the fundamental rules in accordance with which all has
been done?  Can there be any other answer than this?  All has been done
to bring the truth of God's most Holy Word more faithfully and more
freshly home to the hearts and consciences of our English-speaking
people.  And if this be so, how are ministers of this Holy Word to answer
the further question, When we are met together in the House of God to
hear His word and His message of salvation to mankind, how hear we it?
In the traditional form in which it has been heard for wellnigh three
hundred years, or in a form on which, to ensure faithfulness and
accuracy, such labour has been bestowed as that which we are now
considering?  It seems impossible to hesitate as to our answer.  And yet
numbers do hesitate; and partly from indifference, partly from a vague
fear of disquieting a congregation, partly, and probably chiefly, from a
sense of difficulty as to the rightful mode of introducing the change,
the old Version is still read, albeit with an uneasy feeling on the part
of the public reader; the uneasy feeling being this, that errors in
regard of Holy Scripture ought not to remain uncorrected nor obscurities
left to cloud the meaning of God's Word when there is a current Version
from which errors are removed, and in which obscurities are dissipated.
Why should not such a Version be read in the ears of our people?

This is the question which I am confident many a one of you, my dear
friends, when you have been reading in your church--say the
Epistles--have often felt very distinctly come home to you.  Why should
such a Version not be read in the ears of our people?  Has it been
forbidden?  No, thank God; full liberty, on the contrary, has been left
to us by the living voice of the synod of this Province that it may be
read, subject to one reasonable limitation.  Was it not the unanimous
judgement of the Upper House of the Convocation of our Province,
confirmed by the voice of the Lower House {122}--"That the use of the
Revised Version of the Bible at the lectern in the public services of the
Church, where this is desired by clergy and people, is not open to any
well-founded objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent
knowledge of Holy Scripture"?  And further, was not this adopted by the
Lay House of our Province, even when a few doubting voices were heard
{123}, and an interpretation given to the word "use," in the form of a
rider, which, I can confidently say, never entered into the minds or
thoughts of the members of the Upper House?  Indeed, though I do not wish
to criticise the decision of the House of Laymen, their appended words of
interpretation fall to the ground.  If "use" is to mean "occasional
employment of Lessons from the Revised Version, where, in the interest of
more accurate translation, it is desirable," can any Lessons be found
where the interest of more accurate translation is not patently
concerned?  If this be so, what meaning can we assign to "occasional
employment"?

We see then plainly, if we are to be guided by the judgement of the
venerable body to whom the authoritative inception of Revision is alone
to be assigned, that the way to its use in the Public Services of the
Church is open to us all--_where such use is desired by clergy and
people_.  Now let us take these words seriously into our consideration.
They clearly mean, however good the Version may be, that there is to be
no sudden and precipitate use of the Revised Version in the appointed
Lessons for the day on the part of the minister of any of our parishes.
If introduced, its introduction must not be simply when it is desired by
the clergyman, but when it is also desired by his people.  So great a
change as the displacement of the old and familiar Authorised
Version--for it amounts to this--in the public reading of Holy Scripture
in the Services of the Church, in favour of an altered form of the old
Version (though confessedly so altered that the general hearer would
hardly ever recognize the displacement)--so great a change ought not to
be made without the knowledge, and further, the desire of the
congregation.

But how is the desire for the change to be ascertained?  So far as I can
see, there can be only one real and rightful way of bringing about the
desire and the manifestation of it, and that is by first of all showing
simply and plainly how, especially in the New Testament, the alterations
give life, colouring and reality to the narratives of Evangelists, force
and lucidity to the reasonings of Apostles, and, what is of still more
vital importance, deeper insight into our relations to our saving Lord,
clearer knowledge of His blessed life and work here on earth, and
quickened perceptions of our present and our future, and, to a very real
extent, of the holy mysteries of the life of the world to come.  When
changes of text and of renderings are shown, and they can be shown, to
bear with them these fuller revelations of God's Holy Word, there will be
no lack of desire, and of the manifestation of it, in any congregation,
for the public use of a Version through which such disclosures as I have
specified can be brought home to the truth-seeking believer.

My fixed opinion therefore is this, that though, after a long and careful
consideration of the subject, I do sincerely desire that the Revised
Version should be introduced into the churches of this diocese, I do also
sincerely desire that it should not be introduced without a due
preparation of the congregation for the change, and some manifestation of
their desire for the change.  There will probably be a few churches in
our diocese in which the Revised Version is used already, and in regard
of them nothing more will be necessary than, from time to time, in
occasional addresses, to allude to any important changes that may have
appeared in the Lessons and recent readings of Holy Scripture, and thus
to keep alive the thoughtful study of that which will be more and more
felt to be, in the truest sense of the words, the Book of Life.  But, in
the great majority of our churches--though in many cases there may have
been passing desires to read and to hear God's Word in its most truthful
form--no forward steps will have been taken.  It is in reference then to
this great majority of cases that I have broken my long silence, and,
before my ministry closes, have resolved to bring before you the whole
history of the greatest spiritual movement that has taken place since the
Reformation; and also to indicate the untold blessings the Revision will
bear to those who avail themselves of it in all reverent earnestness and
devotion.

Thus far I hope I have made it plain that any forward steps that may be
taken can only hopefully be taken when, both in the case of pastor and
people, due preparation shall have been made for what, in the sequel,
will be found to be an enduring spiritual change in the relation of the
soul of the devout hearer or reader to the Book of Life.  He will learn
not only faithfully to read the inspired Word, but inwardly to love it.

But what shall we regard as due preparation in the case of pastor and
people?  This question, I can well believe, has already risen in the
hearts of many who are now hearing these words, and to the best answer to
it that I am able to give you I will gladly devote the remainder of this
present Address.  Let us first consider how any one of you really and
truly desirous to prepare his congregation for the hearing of God's Word
in the form known as the Revised Version--how such a one should prepare
himself for the responsible duty.  Prayer for himself and his
congregation in this great spiritual matter should ever be his first
preparation.  After this his next care should be to provide himself with
such books as will be indispensable for faithful preparation.  First and
foremost, let him provide himself with a copy of what is called the
Parallel Bible, the Authorised Version being on the left-hand side of the
page, and the Revised Version on the right.  Next let it be his duty to
read closely and carefully the Preface to the Old Testament and the
Preface to the New Testament.  Had this been done years ago, how much of
unfair criticism should we all have been spared?  The next step will be
to obtain some competent guide-book to explain the meaning of the
different changes of rendering, the alterations due to readings having
been separately noted.  The guide-book, whether in the case of the Old or
of the New Testament, should, in my judgement, be a volume written by a
Reviser, as he would have a knowledge, far beyond what could be obtained
by an outsider, of the reasons for many of the departures from the
Authorised Version.

In regard of the Old Testament I have said in my last Address that I do
not myself know of any guide-book, written by a Reviser, save the
interesting volume by Dr. Talbot Chambers, to which I have been indebted
for much that, being a member of another Company, I could not have
brought forward without his assistance.  In regard of the New Testament,
however, it is otherwise.  There is a useful volume by my old friend and
former colleague the late Prebendary Humphry; but the volume which I most
earnestly desire to name is the volume already mentioned, and entitled
"Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament," by the late
Bishop of Durham.  This book is simply indispensable for any one desirous
of preparing himself for the duty of introducing the Revised Version of
the New Testament into the Public Services of his parish.  It is one of
those rare and remarkable books that not only give the needed
explanation, but also cast a light on the whole spiritual results of the
change, and constantly awaken in the reader some portion of the
enthusiasm with which the Bishop records changes that many an earnest and
devout reader might think belonged only to the details of grammatical
accuracy.  I thus cannot forbear quoting a few lines in which the Bishop,
after alluding to the change in Matt. xxviii. 19, _into_ (not _in_) _the
name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost_, and the change in Rom. vi. 23,
_eternal life in_ (not _through_) _Christ Jesus our Lord_, thus speaks
from his inmost soul: "Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered the
meaning of those two prepositions now truly rendered--'_into_ the name,'
'_in_ Christ'--has found the central truth of Christianity?  Certainly I
would gladly have given the ten years of my life spent on the Revision to
bring only these two phrases of the New Testament to the heart of
Englishmen."  Is it too much to say that a volume written by a guide such
as this is simply indispensable for any one who prepares himself for
introducing to his people--the government of whose souls has been
committed to him--the Revised Version of the New Testament of our Lord
and Master Jesus Christ.

With the help that I have specified any one of you, my dear friends,
might adequately prepare himself for the duty and responsibility of
taking the next step, the preparation of his congregation for hearing the
Word of God in the form that most nearly approaches in our own language
what prophets, evangelists, and apostles have written for our learning
under the inspiration of God.  This preparation may be carried on in many
forms, by pastoral visitations, through our Bible classes, through the
efforts of our mission preachers in the holy seasons, but obviously most
hopefully and persuasively by the living voice of the faithful pastor in
his public ministrations in the pulpit of his church.  Parishes differ so
much in spiritual culture that probably no method of preparation could be
specified that would be equally applicable to all.  Still in the case of
our country parishes I am persuaded our preparation must come from the
pulpit and in a manner carefully thought out and prearranged.  Let me
give some indication of a mode of bringing the subject forward in a
country parish that would call out the desire for the regular use of the
Revised Version in the reading of the Lessons for the day.

Let us suppose a month set apart for the preparation.  On the first
Sunday let an account be given of the circumstances, and especially the
authority under which the Revision came into existence.  On the second
Sunday let illustrations be given of the nature of the Revision from
those parts in Bishop Westcott's "Lessons of the Revised Version of the
New Testament" which made the deepest impression during the study of that
suggestive and spiritual volume.  On the third Sunday let comments be
made on the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons for
the day from the Old Testament.  Here the preacher may find some
difficulty, as want of knowledge of Hebrew or of the right interpretation
of the passage in which the alteration is made might prevent his clearly
stating the reasons for it.  In such cases a good modern Commentary on
the Old Testament would probably supply the needed assistance.  The most
available Commentary I know of for the purpose is the one published by
Messrs. Cassells, and now sold at the low price--for both Testaments--of
thirty-five shillings.  On the fourth Sunday, the preacher's subject
should be the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons
from the New Testament.  For this there would be abundant help supplied
by the volume of Bishop Westcott, and, if needed, by the Commentary on
the New Testament to which I have alluded.

Now I sincerely believe that if this very simple and feasible plan were
carried out in any parish, two results would certainly follow: first,
that the Revised Version would be desired and welcomed; secondly, that an
interest in God's Holy Word would be called out in the parish and its
Bible classes that would make a lasting impression on the whole spiritual
life of the place.  We have many faults, but we are a Bible-loving
nation, and we have shown it in many crises of our history; and thus, I
am persuaded, in a change such as I have suggested, the old love would be
called out afresh, and would display itself in a manner we might never
have expected.

I feel now that I have said all that it may be well for me to have laid
before you.  I have used no tone of authority; I have not urged in any
way the introduction of the Revised Version, or that the plan of
introducing it should be adopted by any one among you.  I have contented
myself with having shown that it is feasible; and I have definitely
stated my opinion that, if it were to be adopted, it is in a high degree
probable that a fresh interest in the Holy Scriptures would be awakened,
and the love of God's Holy Word again found to be a living reality.

Perhaps the present time may be of greater moment in regard of the study
of Holy Scripture, and especially of the language of the Greek Testament,
than we may now be able distinctly to foresee.  I mentioned in my last
Address the large amount of research, during the last fifteen years, in
reference to the Greek of the New Testament and the position which the
sacred volume, considered simply historically and as a collection of
writings in the Greek language of the first century after Christ, really
does hold in the general history of a language which, in its latest form,
is widely spoken to this very day.  I mentioned also what seemed to be
the most reasonable opinion, viz. that the Greek of the New Testament was
the spoken Greek of the time, neither literary Greek nor the Greek of the
lower class, but Greek such as men would use at that time when they had
to place in the definiteness of writing the language which passed from
their lips in their converse with their fellow-men.  Now, that advantage
will be taken of this, and that it will be used to show that the
spiritual deductions that we draw from the written words cannot be fully
relied on, because old distinctions have been obscured or obliterated, is
what I fear, in days such as these, will often be used against the
faithful reading, marking, and learning of the Written Word.  But we
shall hear them, I hope, with the two true conclusive answers ever
present in the soul, the answer of plain human reasoning, and the deeper
answer which revelation brings seriously home to us.  In regard of the
first answer, does not plain common sense justify us in maintaining that
the writers meant what they _wrote_, and that when they used certain
Greek words in the mighty message they were delivering to their
fellow-men and to all who should hereafter receive it, they did mean that
those words were to be understood in the plain and simple meaning that
every plain reader would assign to them.  They were not speaking; they
were writing; and they were writing what they knew was to be for all
time.  Thus to take an example from the passages above referred to of
which Bishop Westcott makes such impressive use, who can doubt, with any
fair show of reason--however frequent may be the interchange of the
particular prepositions in the first century--that, in those passages,
when St. Matthew wrote [Greek text] he did mean _into_; and that when St.
Paul used [Greek text], he did mean _in_, in the simplest sense of the
word?

But to the devout Christian we have a far deeper answer than the answer
we have just considered.

In the first place, does not the manifold wisdom of God reveal itself to
our poor human thoughts in His choice of a widespread spoken language,
just by its very diffusion readily lending itself to the reception of new
words and new thoughts as the medium by which the Gospel message was
communicated to the children of men?  Just as the particular period of
Christ's manifestation has ever been reverently regarded as a revelation
of the manifold nature of the eternal wisdom, so may we not see the same
in the choice of a language, at a particular period of its development,
as the bearer of the message of salvation to mankind?  Surely this is a
manifestation of the Divine wisdom which must ever be seen and felt
whenever the outward character of the Greek of the New Testament is dwelt
upon by the truth-seeking spirit of the reverent believer.

And is there not a second thought, far too much lost sight of in our
investigation of the written word of the New Testament--that just as the
writers had their human powers quickened and strengthened by the Holy
Ghost for the full setting forth of the Gospel message by their spoken
words, so in regard of their written words would the same blessed
guidance be vouchsafed to them?  And if so, is it not right for us, not
only to draw from their words all that by the plain laws of language they
can be understood to convey to us, but also to do what has been done in
the Revised Version, and to find the nearest equivalent our language
supplies for the words in the original?

These thoughts might be carried much further, but enough has been said to
justify the minute care that has been taken in the renderings of the
written word of the New Testament by the Revisers, and further, the
validity of the deductions that may be drawn from their use of one word
rather than another, especially in the case of words that might seem to
be practically synonymous.  It may be quite true that, in the current
Greek of the time, many of the distinctions that were valid in an earlier
period of the language were no longer observed; and of this we find many
indications in the Greek Testament.  But it must be remembered that we
also find in the Greek Testament a vastly preponderating portion of what
is grammatically correct according to the earlier standard, and often
clear indications that what was so written must have been definitely
meant by the writer.  Is it not then our clearest duty, remembering
always that what we are translating is the Gospel message, to do what the
Revisers did, to render each passage in accordance with the recognized
meaning of the words, and in harmony with the plain tenor of the context?

I now close these words and these Addresses with the solemn prayer to
Almighty God that in this great matter, and in the use of that which the
living voice of our synod permits us to use, we may be guided by God the
Holy Ghost, through Jesus Christ, our ever-blessed and redeeming Lord and
God.

                                * * * * *

[As the use at the lectern of the Revised Version in the Public Service
of the Church may be thought likely to involve expense, I may mention
that the small pica edition of the Bible, at 10_s._ 6_d._ net, and of the
Apocrypha separately, at 7_s._ 6_d._, will be found sufficient in most
churches.  The folio edition in buckram of the Bible with Apocrypha will,
I understand, be two guineas, net.  Application however should be made to
the University Press of Oxford or of Cambridge, or to the Christian
Knowledge Society.]

                           OXFORD: HORACE HART
                        PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY




Works by the same Author.


ARE WE TO MODIFY FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE?  Small post 8vo, cloth boards,
1_s._

CHRISTUS COMPROBATOR; or, The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament.
Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 2_s._

FOUNDATIONS OF SACRED STUDY.  Part I.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards,
2_s._; Part II, 2_s._ 6_d._

MODERN UNBELIEF: its Principles and Characteristics.  Small post 8vo,
cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._

OUR REFORMED CHURCH AND ITS PRESENT TROUBLES.  Small post 8vo, cloth
boards, 6_d._

SALUTARY DOCTRINE.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._

SPIRITUAL NEEDS IN COUNTRY PARISHES.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._

THE BEING OF GOD (Six Addresses on).  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._
6_d._

                SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.
                   LONDON: NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.




Footnotes:


{6}  The following Resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House
of the Convocation of Canterbury on Feb. 10, 1899, after the presentation
of the Report of the Committee (well worthy of being read) by the Bishop
of Rochester.  The Report is numbered 329, and, with other Reports of
Convocation, is sold by the National Society:--

    "That in the opinion of this House the use of the Revised Version at
    the lectern in the public service of the Church, where this is
    desired by clergy and people, is not open to any well-founded
    objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of
    Holy Scripture."

{10a}  Among others may be named the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1855 on
Paragraph Bibles, in which it was said that it was now high time for
another revision (p. 429); the _Christian Remembrancer_ for 1856 on the
Revision of the Authorised Version (an interesting article); the
_Quarterly Review_ for 1863, intimating that as yet we were not ripe for
any authorised text or translation; the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1865; and
the _Contemporary Review_ for 1868, a careful and elaborate article,
contending that the work must be done by a Commission.

{10b}  In February, 1856, when Canon Selwyn gave notice of proposing a
petition on the subject to the Upper House.  The proposal in a somewhat
different form a year afterwards was disposed of by a characteristic
amendment of Archdeacon Denison.

{10c}  On July 22, 1856, Mr. Heywood, one of the members, I think, for
North Lancashire, in rather an interesting speech, moved for an Address
to the Crown to issue a Royal Commission on the subject.  The motion was
rejected, Sir George Grey expressing his conviction that the feeling of
the country was not in accordance with the motion.

{12}  Preface to the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel
according to St. John by Five Clergymen, p. xii.  As I remark afterwards,
this preface proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatly
helped the cause.  The book has long since gone out of print, but if any
reader of this note should come across it, this preface will be found
well worth reading, as it will show what was in the minds of many beside
the Five Clergymen five and forty years ago.

{13}  See Schaff, _Companion to Greek Testament and English version_, p.
367, note (New York, 1883).

{21}  The _Expositor_ for October, 1892, pp. 241-255.  The article was
answered by me in the same periodical two months later.

{22}  The account of the discussion in the Convocation of York (Feb. 23,
1870) will be found in _The Guardian_ of March 2, 1870.  In the comments
of this paper on the action or rather inaction of the Northern
Convocation a very unfavourable opinion was expressed, in reference to
the manner in which the Southern Convocation had been treated.  But these
things have long since been forgotten.

{35}  It may be interesting to give this list, as it slightly affects
matter that will be alluded to afterwards in reference to the Greek text.
The attendances were as follows: The Chairman, 405; Dr. Scrivener, 399;
Prebendary Humphry, 385; Principal Newth, 373; Prof. Hort, 362; Dean
Bickersteth (Prolocutor), 352; Dean Scott, 337; Prof. Westcott, 304; Dean
Vaughan, 302; Dean Blakesley, 297; Bishop Lightfoot, 290; Archdeacon Lee,
283; Dr. Moulton, 275; Archdeacon Palmer, 255; Dean Stanley, 253; Dr.
Vance Smith, 245; Principal Brown, 209; Principal Angus, 199; Prof.
Milligan, 182; Prof. Kennedy, 165; Dr. Eadie, 135; Bishop Moberly, 121;
Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), 109; Dr. Roberts, 94; Archbishop Trench,
63; Dean Merivale (resigned early), 19; Dean Alford (died soon after
commencement), 16; Bishop Wilberforce, 1.

{36}  This letter will be found in a very valuable _Historical Account of
the Work of the American Committee of Revision_ (New York, 1885), p. 30.
This _Historical Account_ was prepared by a special Committee appointed
for the purpose in May, 1884, and was based on documents and papers
arranged with great care by Dr. Philip Schaff, the President of the
American Committee, and printed privately.  These two volumes, the
_Historical Account_ and the _Documentary History_, contain the fullest
details of the whole transactions between the American Committee and the
English Companies and also the University Presses.

{41}  Talbot W. Chambers, _Companion to the Revised Old Testament_ (Funk
and Wagnalls, New York and London, 1885), Preface, p. ix.

{42a}  A full account of the negotiation and copies of the letters which
passed between the American Revisers and our own Revisers will be found
in Part 2, p. 81 sqq. of the _Documentary History_, above referred to in
the note at p. 36.

{42b}  A full account of this agreement and copies of the correspondence
with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge will be found in Part 3, p.
91 sqq. of the _Documentary History_.

{44}  Since the above was written, information reaches me that an
_American Standard Revision of the Bible_ either just has been, or
shortly will be, published, which though not simply an incorporation of
the recorded American preferences, as long specified in our copies of the
Revision, is a publication resting on authority, and likely to put a stop
to what is unauthorised.  As the reader may like to know a little about
this _American Standard Revision of the Bible_, I will, at the risk of a
long note, mention what I have ascertained up to the present time.  The
survivors of the Old Testament Company (Dr. Osgood and others) with the
three surviving members of the New Testament Company (Dr. Dwight, Dr.
Riddle, and Dr. Thayer--very powerful helpers) have co-operated in
bringing out a new edition of the Revision as it has been hitherto
current in America.  It will contain about _twice as many_ deviations
from the English Revised Version as appear in the original Appendices;
but, in regard of them, the survivors give this important assurance, that
"the survivors have not felt at liberty to make new changes of moment
which were not favourably passed upon (_sic_) by their associates, at one
stage or another of the original preparation of the work."  They specify
that the original Appendix was prepared in haste and did not, in a
satisfactory manner, express the real views of the Committee.  They claim
to have drawn up a body of improved marginal references, to have wholly
removed archaisms, to have supplied running headings, to have modified
what they consider unwieldy paragraphs, to have lightened what they
regard as clumsy punctuation, and by typographical arrangements, such as
by leaving a line blank, to have indicated the main transitions of
thought in the Epistles and Apocalypse.  These and other characteristics
will be found specified in the American _Sunday School Times_ for August
11, 1901, in an article apparently derived from those interested.  Till
we see the book we must suspend our judgement.

{50}  See an article by Rev. J. F. Thrupp in Smith's _Dictionary of the
Bible_, vol. ii. art. Old Testament.

{53}  Since the above was written a critical edition of the four Peshitto
Gospels has been published by the Oxford University Press, based on the
labours of the late Philip Edward Pusey, and Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, of
Hertford College.

{55}  The title of the pamphlet, which contains twelve letters from
distinguished German Professors, with translations, is _The Revision of
the Old Testament_ (New York, Scribner's Sons, 1886).

{59}  The title of Dr. Salmon's interesting volume is _Some Thoughts on
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (Murray, London, 1897).

{60a}  Salmon, p. 157.

{60b}  Ibid., p. 12.

{96}  See below, pp. 98, 120.

{97}  See the Preface to Dr. Rutherford's _Translation of the Epistle to
the Romans_, p. xi sq. (Lond. 1900).

{98a}  Hodder & Stoughton (Lond. 1897).

{98b}  Page 18.

{106}  See page 32.

{109}  _Bible Studies_, by Dr. G. Adolf Deissmann, Authorised Translation
(Clark, Edinburgh, 1901).

{110a}  Page 175.

{110b}  London, Macmillan, 1898.

{111}  _Theologische Literaturzeitung_, xix (vol. for 1894), p. 338.

{112}  _Bible Studies_, p. 84 Transl.  See, however, the translator's
note, p. 173, where the use of the term is explained.

{114}  _Grammar of New Testament Greek_, section 38. 5, p. 118 (Transl.).

{122}  See _Chronicle of Convocation_ for February 10, 1899, p. 71 sqq.

{123}  At the May Meeting of the present year.



***