{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25412/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25412","id":"gutenberg_25412","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25412","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. English -- Versions -- Revised","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1901 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge\nedition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\nAddresses on the Revised\nVersion of Holy\nScripture.\n\n\n                                    BY\n                          C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,\n\n                          BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER,\n            AND HON. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.\n\n          PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE.\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,\n       NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.; 43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.\n                       BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET.\n                     NEW YORK: E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO.\n                                  1901.\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE.\n\n\nThe following Addresses form the Charge to the Archdeaconry of\nCirencester at the Visitation held at the close of October in the present\nyear.  The object of the Charge, as the opening words and the tenor of\nthe whole will abundantly indicate, is seriously to suggest the question,\nwhether the time has not now arrived for the more general use of the\nRevised Version at the lectern in the public service of the Church.\n\n                                                         C. J. GLOUCESTER.\n\n_October_, 1901.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n                                                                      PAGE\n            ADDRESS I.  EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION                        5\n                ,, II.  LATER HISTORY OF REVISION                       17\n               ,, III.  HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT                           48\n                ,, IV.  NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS                        81\n                 ,, V.  PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION                      117\n\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS I.\nEARLY HISTORY OF REVISION.\n\n\nAs there now seem to be sufficient grounds for thinking that ere long the\nRevised Version of Holy Scripture will obtain a wider circulation and\nmore general use than has hitherto been accorded to it, it seems\ndesirable that the whole subject of the Revised Version, and its use in\nthe public services of the Church, should at last be brought formally\nbefore the clergy and laity, not only of this province, but of the whole\nEnglish Church.\n\nTwenty years have passed away since the appearance of the Revised Version\nof the New Testament, and the presentation of it by the writer of these\npages to the Convocation of Canterbury on May 17, 1881.  Just four more\nyears afterwards, viz. on April 30, 1885, the Revised Version of the Old\nTestament was laid before the same venerable body by the then Bishop of\nWinchester (Bp. Harold Browne), and, similarly to the Revised Version of\nthe New Testament, was published simultaneously in this country and\nAmerica.  It was followed, after a somewhat long interval, by the Revised\nVersion of the Apocrypha, which was laid before Convocation by the writer\nof these pages on February 12, 1896.\n\nThe revision of the Authorised Version has thus been in the hands of the\nEnglish-speaking reader sixteen years, in the case of the Canonical\nScriptures, and five years in the case of the Apocrypha--periods of time\nthat can hardly be considered insufficient for deciding generally,\nwhether, and to what extent, the Revised Version should be used in the\npublic services of the Church.\n\nI have thus thought it well, especially after the unanimous resolution of\nthe Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, three years ago {6},\nand the very recent resolution of the House of Laymen, to place before\nyou the question of the use of the Revised Version in the public services\nof the Church, as the ultimate subject of this charge.  I repeat, as the\nultimate subject, for no sound opinion on the public use of this version\ncan possibly be formed unless some general knowledge be acquired, not\nonly of the circumstances which paved the way for the revision of the\ntime-honoured version of 1611, but also of the manner in which the\nrevision was finally carried out.  We cannot properly deal with a\nquestion so momentous as that of introducing a revised version of God's\nHoly Word into the services of the Church, without knowing, at least in\noutline, the whole history of the version which we are proposing to\nintroduce.  This history then I must now place before you from its very\ncommencement, so far as memory and a nearly life-long connexion with the\nsubject enable me to speak.\n\nThe true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, more\nparticularly, of the revision of the New Testament, must be regarded as\nthe grammar written by a young academic teacher, George Benedict Winer,\nas far back as 1822, bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language of\nthe New Testament.  It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, and\nindeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed in\ncommentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenth\ncenturies.  It met with at first the fate of all assaults on prevailing\nunscientific procedures, but its value and its truth were soon\nrecognized.  The volume passed through several successively improved\neditions, until in 1855 the sixth edition was reached, and issued with a\nnew and interesting preface by the then distinguished and veteran writer.\nThis edition formed the basis of the admirable and admirably supplemented\ntranslation of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, which\nwas published in 1870, passed through a second edition six years\nafterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard grammar,\nin an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this day.\n\nThe claim that I have put forward for this remarkable book as the\nfountain-head of revision can easily be justified when we call to memory\nhow very patently the volume, in one or another of its earlier editions,\nformed the grammatical basis of the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer,\nand, here in England, of the commentary of Alford, and of critical and\ngrammatical commentaries on some of St. Paul's Epistles with which my own\nname was connected.  It was to Winer that we were all indebted for that\ngreater accuracy of interpretation of the Greek Testament which was\nrecognized and welcomed by readers of the New Testament at the time I\nmention, and produced effects which had a considerable share in the\ngradual bringing about of important movements that almost naturally\nfollowed.\n\nWhat came home to a large and increasing number of earnest and\ntruth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this--that there were\ninaccuracies and errors in the current version of the Holy Scriptures,\nand especially of the New Testament, which plainly called for\nconsideration and correction, and further brought home to very many of us\nthat this could never be brought about except by an authoritative\nrevision.\n\nThis general impression spread somewhat rapidly; and soon after the\nmiddle of the last century it began to take definite shape.  The subject\nof the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament found a\nplace in the religious and other periodicals of the day {10a}, and as the\ntime went on was the subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded to\neven in Convocation {10b} and Parliament {10c}.  As yet however there had\nbeen no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by its\nnumerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally entertained as to the\nform that a revision might ultimately take.  It was feared by many that\nany authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance and\ninfluence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of Holy\nScripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions that were\nprevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the cause of sound\nreligion in our Church and in our nation.\n\nThere was thus a real danger, unless some forward step was quickly and\nprudently taken, that the excitement might gradually evaporate, and the\nmovement for revision might die out, as has often been the case in regard\nof the Prayer Book, into the old and wonted acquiescence of the past.\n\nIt was just at this critical time that an honoured and influential\nchurchman, who was then the popular and successful secretary of the\nSociety for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. Ernest Hawkins,\nafterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and persuaded a few of us,\nwho had the happiness of being his friends, to combine and publish a\nversion of one of the books of the New Testament which might practically\ndemonstrate to friends and to opponents what sort of a revision seemed\ndesirable under existing circumstances.  After it had been completed we\ndescribed it \"as a _tentamen_, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality,\ninviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the same\nkind, calling the attention of the Church to the many and anxious\nquestions involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular\nlanguage, and offering some help towards the settlement of those\nquestions {12}.\"\n\nThe portion of Scripture selected was the Gospel according to St. John.\nThose who undertook the revision were five in number:--Dr. Barrow, the\nthen Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford; Dr. Moberly, afterwards\nBishop of Salisbury; Rev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury;\nRev. W. G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields; and lastly, the\nwriter of this charge.  Mr. Ernest Hawkins, busy as he was, acted to a\ngreat extent as our secretary, superintended arrangements, and encouraged\nand assisted us in every possible manner.  Our place of meeting was the\nlibrary of our hospitable colleague Mr. Humphry.  We worked in the\ngreatest possible harmony, and happily and hopefully concluded our\nRevision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel of St. John in the month\nof March, 1857.\n\nOur labours were introduced by a wise and attractive preface, written\nmainly by Dr. Moberly, in the lucid, reverent, and dignified language\nthat marked everything that came from the pen of the late Bishop of\nSalisbury.\n\nThe effect produced by this _tentamen_ was indisputably great.  The work\nitself was of course widely criticized, but for the most part favourably\n{13}.  The principles laid down in the preface were generally considered\nreasonable, and the possibilities of an authoritative revision distinctly\nincreased.  The work in fact became a kind of object lesson.\n\nIt showed plainly that there _were_ errors in the Authorised Version that\nneeded correction.  It further showed that their removal and the\nintroduction of improvements in regard of accuracy did not involve,\neither in quantity or quality, the changes that were generally\napprehended.  And lastly, it showed in its results that _scholars_ of\ndifferent habits of thought could combine in the execution of such a work\nwithout friction or difficulty.\n\nIn regard of the Greek text but little change was introduced.  The basis\nof our translation was the third edition of Stephens, from which we only\ndeparted when the amount of external evidence in favour of a different\nreading was plainly overwhelming.  As we ourselves state in the preface,\n\"our object was to revise a version, not to frame a text.\"  We should\nhave obscured this one purpose if we had entered into textual criticism.\n\nSuch was the tentative version which prepared the way for authoritative\nrevision.\n\nMore need not be said on this early effort.  The version of the Gospel of\nSt. John passed through three editions.  The Epistles to the Romans and\nCorinthians appeared in 1858, and the first three of the remaining\nEpistles (Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) in 1861.  The third\nedition of the Revision of the Authorised Version of St. John was issued\nin 1863, with a preface in which the general estimate of the revision was\ndiscussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative procedure\nin reference to the whole question.  As our little band had now been\nreduced to four, and its general aim and object had been realized, we did\nnot deem it necessary to proceed with a work which had certainly helped\nto remove most of the serious objections to authoritative revision.  Our\nefforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were then\nappearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, by the\nimportant work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, Trench, entitled \"On\nthe Authorised Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent\nproposals for its revision.\"  This appeared in 1858.  After the close of\nour tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as they may be\ntermed) of the movement did but little except, from time to time, confer\nwith one another on the now yearly improving prospects of authoritative\nrevision.  In 1869 Dean Alford published a small handy revised version of\nthe whole of the Greek Testament, and, a short time afterwards, I\npublished a small volume on the \"Revision of the English Version,\" in\nwhich I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and vigorous\ntranslation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised Version, and how\nlittle of this would ever be likely to disappear in any authoritatively\nrevised version of the future.  Some estimate also was made of the amount\nof changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the Gospels.  A\nfew months later, a very valuable volume (\"On a Fresh Revision of the New\nTestament\") was published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot,\nwhich appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of a\nrevision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word was about to be\nrealized.\n\nAll now was ready for a definite and authoritative commencement.  Of\nthis, and of the later history of Revision, a brief account will be given\nin the succeeding Address.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS II.\nLATER HISTORY OF REVISION.\n\n\nWe are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative and\npreparatory passed into definite and authoritative realization.\n\nThe initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of\nthe Convocation of Canterbury.  The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the\nBishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be\ndesirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the\nHouse, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the\nindirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence\nof the Northern Convocation.  The resolution was as follows:\n\n    \"That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer\n    with any committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the\n    Northern Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of\n    the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal\n    notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors,\n    whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the\n    translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due\n    investigation be found to exist.\"\n\nIn the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by\nthe insertion of the words \"Old and,\" so as to include both Testaments,\nand, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once\nsent down to the Lower House.  After debate it was accepted by them, and,\nhaving been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the\narrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.\n\nInto all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far as\nplainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thus\nundertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocation\nduring its long and eventful history, followed every course, adopted\nevery expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the great\nwork it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.\n\nIt may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with the\nprimary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed of\neight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regular\nrule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, to\nconfer with the Convocation of York.  The members of the Upper House were\nas follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids\n(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (Harold\nBrowne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon after\nwithdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself.\n\nThe members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth, Dean\nof Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley),\nand Lincoln (Jeremie); the Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter\n(Freeman), and Rochester (Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons\nBlakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De\nWinton.\n\nBefore, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of\nConvocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five\nresolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them,\nwere accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in\nthe Lower House:\n\n    \"1.  That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version\n    of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.\n\n    2.  That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal\n    renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to\n    insert in the text of the Authorised Version.\n\n    3.  That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new\n    translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except\n    where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change\n    is necessary.\n\n    4.  That in such necessary changes, the style of the language\n    employed in the existing version be closely followed.\n\n    5.  That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of\n    its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at\n    liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to\n    whatever nation or religious body they may belong.\"\n\nThese are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by\nthe Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body.  The second and third\nrules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the\nemendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of\nrevision.  This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive,\nbut in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by\nConvocation.  A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop\nof Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known\nperiodical {21} that the revisers \"largely exceeded their instructions,\nand did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow.\"\nThis is a very grave charge, but can it be substantiated?  The second and\nthird rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt necessity\non the part of \"the most competent scholars,\" and these last-mentioned\nmust surely be understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for\nthe work.  In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of\nConvocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was to be\nfaithfulness to the original.  All then that can justly be said in\nreference to the Revisers is this,--not that they exceeded their\ninstructions (a very serious charge), but that their estimate of what\nconstituted faithfulness, and involved the necessity of change, was, from\ntime to time, in the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated.\nSuch language however as that used in reference to the changes made by\nthe Revisers as \"unnecessary and uninstructive alterations,\" and\n\"irritating trivialities,\" was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the\njudgement arrived at.\n\nBut to proceed.  On the presentation of the Report it was stated that the\ncommittee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, as\nno committee had been appointed by them.  It was commonly supposed that\nthe Northern President (Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the\ntwo Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very different\nview {22}, as our President informed us that he had received a\ncommunication from the Convocation of York to the effect that--\"The\nAuthorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the\nEstablished Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the\nEnglish-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and\nthat although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to\ntime, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text.\nThat Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a\ncommittee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation\nof Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified.\"\n\nThis obviously closed the question of co-operation with the Northern\nConvocation.  We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were many\nable and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we should\nhave heartily welcomed.  Delay, however, was now out of the question.\nThe working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the\nConvocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed\nrevision.\n\nThe course of our proceedings was then as follows:\n\nAfter the Report of the committee had been accepted by the Upper House,\nand communicated to the Lower House, the following resolution was\nunanimously adopted by the Upper House (May 3, 1870), and in due course\nsent down to the Lower House:\n\n    \"That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to\n    Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in the\n    Report now adopted.  That the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids,\n    Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely, Salisbury, Lincoln, Bath and\n    Wells, be members of the committee.  That the committee be empowered\n    to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from\n    their biblical scholarship to aid them in their work.\"\n\nThis resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that as\nthis was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact an\nexecutive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinary\ncommittees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House,\nbut simply an equal number.  This request, though obviously a very\nreasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to\nwithout some debate and even remonstrance.  This, however, was overcome\nand quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of the\nProlocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by the\nLower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans of\nCanterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford\n(Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed\nas members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.\n\nThis Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of choosing experts,\nand, out of them and their own members, forming two Companies, the one\nfor the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the\nother for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament.\nRules had to be drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying\nout in detail of the whole of the proposed work.  In this work it may be\nsupposed that considerable difficulty would have been found in the choice\nof biblical scholars in addition to those already appointed by\nConvocation.  This, however, did not prove to be the case.  I was at that\ntime acting as a kind of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of\nDr. Moulton and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of\ndistinguished biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in\nEngland and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be made.\nWhen we met together finally to choose, there was thus no lack of\nsuitable names.\n\nIn regard of the many rules that had to be made for the orderly carrying\nout of the work I prepared, after careful conference with the Bishop of\nWinchester, a draft scheme which, so far as I remember, was in the sequel\nsubstantially adopted by what I have termed the Permanent Committee of\nConvocation.  When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870,\nthe names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed upon,\nand invitations at once sent out.  The members of the Committee had\nalready been assigned to their special companies; viz. to the Old\nTestament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who\nsoon after resigned), and Bath and Wells; and from the Lower House,\nArchdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New\nTestament Company, the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and\nSalisbury; and from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of\nCanterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.\n\nThose invited to join the Old Testament were as follows:--Dr. W. L.\nAlexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr.\nB. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch,\nArchdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne\nSmith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr.\nWright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and\nvaluable secretary of the Company.\n\nOf these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.\n\nThose invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows:--Dr.\nAngus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie,\nRev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee,\nDr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman,\nProfessor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol\nCollege), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth),\nDr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.\n\nOf these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health\nand preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New\nTestament, was unable to attend.  It should be here mentioned that soon\nafter the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of\nWestminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Company\nas their secretary.  A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigable\nsecretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for the\ngreat and responsible work.\n\nOn the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out of the\nrevision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were all\nduly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear and\nopen for the commencement of the work.  These rules (copies of which will\nbe found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto\nissued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the\nfundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have been\nalready specified.\n\nThe first of these subsidiary rules was as follows:--\"To introduce as few\nalterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version\nconsistently with faithfulness.\"  This rule must be read in connexion\nwith the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I have\nalready made on those rules.\n\nThe second of the rules of the committee was as follows:--\"To limit, as\nfar as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of\nthe Authorised and earlier English versions.\"  This rule was carefully\nattended to in its reference to the Authorised Version.  I do not however\nremember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that we\noften fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions.  They\nwere always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there\nwere differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings of\nthe ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and\noccasionally of the Gothic and Armenian.  To these, however, the rule\nmakes no allusion.\n\nThe third rule speaks for itself:--\"Each Company to go twice over the\nportion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and\non principles of voting as hereinafter is provided.\"\n\nThe fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and is\nan amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule.  The\nrule of the committee is as follows:--\"That the text to be adopted be\nthat for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when\nthe text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version\nwas made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.\"  The subject of the\ntext is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows:--\"To make or\nretain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company\nexcept _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on the\nfirst revision to decide by simple majorities.\"\n\nThe sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I do\nnot know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was very\nrarely acted upon:--\"In every case of proposed alteration that may have\ngiven rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next\nmeeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those\npresent at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice\nfor the next meeting.\"  The only occasion on which I can remember this\nrule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one.  At\nthe close of a long day's work we found ourselves differing on the\nrenderings of \"tomb\" or \"sepulchre\" in one of the narratives of the\nResurrection.  This was easily and speedily settled the following\nmorning.\n\nThe seventh rule was as follows:--\"To revise the headings of chapters and\npages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation.\"  This rule was very\ncarefully attended to except as regards headings of chapters and pages.\nThese were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of\ndirect interpretation, that both Companies agreed to leave this portion\nof the work to some committee of the two University Presses that they\nmight afterwards think fit to appoint.  Small as the work might seem to\nbe if only confined to the simple revision of the existing headings, the\ntime it would have taken up, if undertaken by the Companies, would\ncertainly have been considerable.  I revised, on my own account, the\nheadings of the chapters in St. Matthew, and was surprised to find how\nmuch time was required to do accurately and consistently what might have\nseemed a very easy and inconsiderable work.\n\nThe eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarely\nacted upon: \"To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered\ndesirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or\nabroad, for their opinions.\"  How far this was acted on by the Old\nTestament Company I do not know.  In regard of the New Testament Company\nthe only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule,\nwas in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventh\nchapter of the Acts of the Apostles.  In this particular case we sent our\nsheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of us\nknew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nautically\ncorrect.  I believe this friendly and competent authority did not find\nanything amiss.  It has sometimes been said that it would have been\nbetter, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule had\nbeen more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English and\nalterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our more\ndistinguished literary men.  It may be so; though I much doubt whether in\nmatters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominant\narbiter.  In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much could\nhave been effected by appealing to the ears of others.  At any rate we\npreferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards\nmention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been\nimproved upon.\n\nThe concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: \"That the\nwork of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in\norder that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language\nas possible.\"\n\nAll preliminaries were now settled.  The invitations were issued, and,\nwith the exceptions of Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were\nreadily accepted.  Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor\nGeden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added to those\nalready mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament Company, and, in\nless than a month after the meeting of the committee on May 25, both\nCompanies had entered upon their responsible work.  On June 22, 1870,\nboth Companies, after a celebration of the Holy Communion, previously\nannounced by Dean Stanley as intended to be administered by him in\nWestminster Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII, commenced the\nlong-looked-for revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word.\nThe Old Testament Company commenced their work in the Chapter Library;\nthe New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber.\n\nThe number of the members in each Company was very nearly the same, viz.\ntwenty-seven in the Old Testament Company, and, in nominal attendance,\ntwenty-six in the New Testament Company.  In the former Company, owing to\nthe longer time found necessary for the work (fourteen years), there were\nmore changes in the composition of the Company than in the case of the\nlatter Company, which completed its work three years and a half before\nits sister Company.  At the close of the work on the New Testament\n(1880), the numbers in each Company were twenty-six and twenty-five; but\nowing to various reasons, and especially the distance of many of the\nmembers from London, the number in actual and regular attendance was\nsomewhat reduced as the years went onward.  How it fared with the Old\nTestament Company I cannot precisely state.  Bishop Harold Browne, after\nhis accession to the See of Winchester, was only able to attend twice or\nthree times after the year 1875.  In that year Bishop Thirlwall died, and\nBishop Ollivant ceased to attend, but remained a corresponding member\ntill his death in 1882.  Vacancies, I am informed, were filled up till\nOctober 1875, after which date no new members were added.  The Company,\nhowever, worked to the very end with great devotion and assiduity.  The\nrevision occupied 794 days, and was completed in eighty-five sessions,\nthe greater part of which were for ten days each, at about six hours a\nday.\n\nI can speak a little more exactly in reference to the New Testament\nCompany.  The time was shorter, and the changes in the composition of the\nCompany were fewer.  At the end of the work a record was made out of the\nattendances of the individual members {35}, from which it was easy to\narrive at the average attendance, which for the whole time was found to\nbe as much as sixteen each day.  The number of sessions was 101 of four\ndays each, and one of three days, making a total of 407 days in all.\nMore than 1,200 days were thus devoted to the work of the revision of the\nAuthorised Versions of both Testaments.  The first revision, in the case\nof the New Testament lasted about six years; the second, two years and a\nhalf.  The remaining two years were spent in the consideration of various\ndetails and reserved questions, and especially the consideration of the\nsuggestions, on our second revision, of the American Revisers, of whose\nwork and connexion with the English Revisers it will now be convenient to\nspeak.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nThe idea of a connexion with America in the great work of revision was\nnearly as early as the movements in Convocation of which an account has\nbeen given.  It appears that, in the session of Convocation in July,\n1870, it was moved in the Lower House by Lord Alwyne Compton (afterwards\nand now Bishop of Ely) that the committee of Convocation should be\ninstructed to invite the co-operation of some American divines.  This was\nat once agreed to by both Houses, and measures were taken to open\ncommunications with America.  The correspondence was opened by the acting\nChairman of the New Testament Company (the present writer) in a letter to\nDr. Angus (dated July 20, 1870 {36}) who was about to visit the United\nStates, empowering him to prepare the way for definite action on the part\nof American scholars and divines.  This he did in a letter (\"Historical\nAccount,\" p. 31) sent round to American scholars, and especially by\ncommunication with Dr. Philip Schaff of the Bible House at New York, who,\nfrom the first, had taken the deepest interest in the movement.  This\nactive and enterprising scholar at once took up the matter, and operated\nso successfully that, as he himself tells us in his valuable and accurate\n\"Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version\" (New York,\n1883), a committee of about thirty members was formally organized Dec. 7,\n1871, and entered upon active work on Oct. 4, 1872, after the first\nrevision of the Synoptical Gospels had been forwarded by the New\nTestament Company.\n\nOur Old Testament Company was no less active and co-operative.  As they\ntell us in the Preface prefixed to their revision, \"the first revision of\nthe several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the consideration\nof the American Revisers, and, except in the case of the Pentateuch\n(which had been twice gone through prior to co-operation) the English\nCompany had the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions before they\nproceeded to the second revision.  The second revision was in like manner\nforwarded to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Revisers\nwere in the hands of the English Company at their final review.\"  Both\nour English Companies bear hearty testimony to the value derived from the\nco-operation.  In the case of the New Testament Company, the \"care,\nvigilance, and accuracy\" which marked the work of their American brethren\nis distinctly specified.\n\nBut little more need be said of the American Companies.  They were soon\nfully organized, and, so far as can be judged by the results of their\nwork, carefully and judiciously chosen.  The Old Testament Company\nconsisted of fifteen members, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, being\nChairman: the New Testament Committee consisted of sixteen members, three\nof those who had at first accepted having been obliged, from ill-health\nand stress of local duties, to resign.  Dr. Woolsey, Ex-President of Yale\nCollege, was Chairman, and Bishop Lee, of the Diocese of Delaware, one of\nthe most faithful and valuable participators in the work, a member of the\nCompany.  Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union\nTheological Seminary, New York, was also a member, and was President of\nthe whole undertaking, Dr. George Day of Yale College, a member of the\nOld Testament Company, being the general secretary.  The two Companies\nmet every month (except July and August) in two rooms in the Bible House,\nNew York, but without any connexion with the Bible Society, which, as in\nEngland, could only circulate the Authorised Version.\n\nThe American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included representatives of\nnine different denominations, viz. Episcopalians, Presbyterians,\nCongregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and, to the extent of one\nmember, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Society of Friends.  The Episcopal\nChurch of America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the request\nthat they would take part in the revision: this was declined.  The\nAmerican Church however, as we have already shown, was not wholly\nunrepresented in the work.  The whole Committee was obviously much more\nmixed than the English Committee; but it must not be forgotten that\nthough the English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, and\nEpiscopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly one-third of\nthe two Companies were not members of the Church of England.  If we\nassume that each Company consisted at any given time of twenty-five\nmembers, which, as we have seen, would be approximately correct, the\nnon-Episcopal members will be found to have been not less than sixteen,\nviz. seven Presbyterians, four Independents or Congregationalists, two\nBaptists, two Wesleyans, and one Unitarian.  Be this however as it may,\nit is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God the\nHoly Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the work both here\nand in America.  Here, as is well known, this was the case; and in\nAmerica, to quote one only out of many similar witnesses, one who was\nhimself a reviser, and the only pastor in the Company (the Old Testament\nCompany), thus gives his experience, \"Never, even once, did the _odium\ntheologicum_ appear.  Nothing was said at any time that required\nretraction or apology {41}.\"\n\nThis brief notice of our American brethren may close with one further\ncomment.  Their work began, like ours, with reliance on financial aid\nfrom the many who would be sure to be interested in such an important and\nlong-desired work.  Help in our case was at once readily proffered, but\nvery soon was found not to be necessary, owing to our disposal of\ncopyright to the Presses of the two Universities.  With the American\nRevisers it was otherwise.  During the whole twelve years all the\nnecessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and other\naccessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed by\nliberal donors from among the friends of biblical revision.  There\nremained, however, a grave difficulty.  It was plainly impossible that\nsuch distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companies\ncould simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent over to\nthem without being recognized as fellow revisers in the full sense of the\nwords.  How, however, formally to establish this parity of position was\nfound to be very difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, who\nhad trade rights which had properly to be guarded.  The result was much\nfriendly negotiation for several months, but without any definite\nadjustment {42a}.  At last, by the wise and conciliatory action of the\nPresses an agreement was arrived at in August, 1877 {42b}, by which we on\nthis side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the various\nstages of our work to our American brethren and carefully to consider all\ntheir suggestions, but also to sanction the publication in every copy of\nthe revision of a list of all the important passages, in regard of text\nand renderings, upon which the English and American Revisers could not\nfinally agree.  The American Revisers on their part undertook not to\npublish any edition of their own for fourteen years.\n\nThe fourteen years have now passed away, but prior to the expiration of\nthe time the long-needed marginal references were completed, and in\nSeptember, 1898, were attached to the pages of all the larger English\ncopies of the Revised Version of the Holy Scripture, with a short account\nof the sources from which they were derived, and of the circumstances of\ntheir delayed publication.  As they were somewhat closely connected with\nthe labours of two of the members of the New Testament Company, and had\nreceived the general approval of that Company, I had real pleasure in\npresenting to both Houses of Convocation on Feb. 10, 1899, the completed\nbody of references, and, in them, the very last portion of every part of\nthe work of the Company with which I had so long been connected.\n\nThe appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it enabled the\nUniversities to acquire copyright for any of the editions _with these\nreferences_ which they might publish, or cause to be published in\nAmerica.  The University Press of Oxford has, I know, acted on this\nright, but whether in conjunction with the Cambridge University Press or\nindependently I am not able to say.  The right at any rate remains, and\nin the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may now\nsuppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of altered editions of\nthe revision, which from time to time might be brought forward by\nirresponsible publishers {44}.\n\nOne subject still remains to be noticed in this portion of my address\nwhich cannot be passed over--the revision of the Apocrypha.  This the\nEnglish revisers were pledged to the University Presses to complete,\nbefore our connexion with them could be rightfully concluded.  This\nrevision, as we know, has been completed, though perhaps not in a manner\nthat can be considered as completely satisfactory, owing to the want of a\nco-ordinating authority.  The arrangement, of which a full and clear\naccount will be found in the preface to the published volume, was briefly\nas follows.  On March 21, 1879, as the New Testament Company was fast\napproaching the completion of its labours, it was agreed that the Company\nshould be divided into three portions, each consisting of eight members,\nto which the names of the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Companies\nwere to be respectively assigned.  The portion of the work that each of\nthe three Companies was to take was settled by lot.  To the London\nCompany, of which I was a member, the book of Ecclesiasticus was\nassigned; to the Westminster Company, the first book of Maccabees, and\nsubsequently the books Tobit and Judith; and to the Cambridge Company,\nthe second book of Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.\n\nOn the completion of their work, the Old Testament Company assigned to a\nspecial committee chosen out of their number the remaining books of the\nApocrypha, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, the remainder of Esther, Baruch, Song of\nthe Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of\nManasses.\n\nIt was agreed that each Company and the above-named committee should go\nthrough their work twice, but without the two-thirds condition, and that\neach body should send its work when completed round to the rest.  The\ntimes, however, at which the portions were completed were by no means,\neven approximately, the same.  The London Company completed its work in\nMay, 1883.  The Westminster Company finished the first book of Maccabees\nin November, 1881, and the books of Tobit and Judith in October, 1882.\nThe Cambridge Company completed its revision of the second book of\nMaccabees in December, 1889, and of the Book of Wisdom, which underwent\nthree revisions, in November, 1891.  The revision of the remaining books,\nundertaken by the Old Testament Company, does not seem to have been\ncompleted till even two or three years later.  This interval of ten or\ntwelve years involved in some of the books, especially in reference to\nEcclesiasticus, the clear necessity for further revision.  This compelled\nme, with the help of my valued friend Dr. Moulton, to go over the work of\nmy former Company on my own responsibility, my coadjutors in the work\nhaving been either called away by death or too seriously ill to help me.\n\nIt was thus with some sense of relief that, on the request of those\nconnected with the publication of the volume, I presented the Revised\nVersion of the Apocrypha to the two Houses of Convocation on February 12,\n1896.\n\nThe rise and progress of the desire for a revision of the Authorised\nVersion of Holy Scripture has now been set forth as fully as the limits\nof these Addresses permit.  What now remains to be specified is what may\nbe called the internal history of this Revision, or, in other words, the\nnature and procedure of the work, with such concluding comments as the\ncircumstances of the present may appear to suggest.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS III.\nHEBREW AND GREEK TEXT.\n\n\nWe now pass from what may be called the outward history of the Revision\nto the inward nature and character of the work of the Revisers, and may\nnaturally divide that work into two portions--their labours as regards\nthe original text, and their labours in regard of rendering and\ntranslation.\n\nI.  First, then, as regards the original text of the Old Testament.\n\nHere the work of the Old Testament Company was very slight as compared\nwith that of the New Testament Company.  The latter Company had, almost\nin every other verse, to settle upon a text--often involving much that\nwas doubtful and debatable--before they proceeded to the further work of\ntranslating.  The Old Testament Company, on the contrary, had ready to\nhand a _textus receptus_ which really deserved the title, and on which,\nin their preface, they write as follows: \"The received, or, as it is\ncommonly called, the Massoretic text of the Old Testament Scriptures has\ncome down to us in manuscripts which are of no very great antiquity, and\nwhich all belong to the same family or recension.  That other recensions\nwere at one time in existence is probable from the variations in the\nAncient Versions, the oldest of which, namely, the Greek or Septuagint,\nwas made, at least in part, some two centuries before the Christian era.\nBut as the date of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to\njustify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the\nauthority of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to\nadopt the Massoretic text as the basis of their work, and to depart from\nit, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases.\"\n\nThat in this decision the Revisers had exercised the sound judgement\nwhich marks every part of their work cannot possibly be doubted by any\ncompetent reader.  The Massoretic text has a long and interesting\nhistory.  Its name is derived from a word, Massora (tradition), that\nreminds us of the accumulated traditions and criticisms relating to\nnumerous passages of the text, and of the manner in which it was to be\nread, all which were finally committed to writing, and the ultimate\nresult of which is the text of which we have been speaking.  That the\nformation of the written Massora was a work of time seems a probable and\nreasonable supposition.  A very competent writer {50} tells us that this\nformation may have extended from the sixth or seventh to the tenth or\neleventh century.  From the end of this Massoretic period onward the same\nwriter tells us that the Massora became the great authority by which the\ntext given in all the Jewish manuscripts was settled.  All our\nmanuscripts, in a word, are Massoretic.  Any that were not so were not\nused, and allowed to perish, or, as it has been thought, were destroyed\nas not being in strict accordance with the recognized standards.  Whether\nwe have sustained any real critical loss by the disappearance of the\nrejected manuscripts it is impossible to say.  The fact only remains that\nwe have no manuscript of any portion of the Old Testament certainly known\nto be of a date prior to A.D. 916.  The Massora, it may be mentioned,\nappears in two forms--the _Massora parva_ and the _Massora magna_.  The\nformer contains the really valuable portion of the great work, viz., the\nvariation technically named K'ri (_read_), and placed in the margin of\nthe Hebrew Bibles.  This was to be substituted for the corresponding\nportion in the text technically named C'thib (_written_), and was\nregarded by the Massoretes themselves as the true reading.  The _Massora\nmagna_ contained the above, and other matter deemed to be of importance\nin reference to the interpretation of the text.\n\nThe Revisers inform us that they have generally, though not uniformly,\nrendered the C'thib in the text, and left the K'ri in the margin, with\nthe introductory note, \"Or, according to another reading,\" or, \"Another\nreading is.\"  When they adopted the K'ri in the text of their rendering,\nthey placed the C'thib in the margin if it represented a variation of\nimportance.\n\nThese things, and others specified in the preface, should be carefully\nattended to by the reader as enabling him to distinguish between the\ndifferent characters of the alternative renderings as specified in the\nmargin.  Those due to the Massoretes, or, in other words, the K'ris, will\nnaturally deserve attention from their antiquity.  They are not, however,\nwhen estimated with reference to the whole of the sacred volume, very\nnumerous.  In the earliest printed bible they were 1,171 in number, but\nthis is generally considered erroneous in excess, 900 being probably much\nnearer the true estimate.\n\nWe cannot leave the subject of the Hebrew text without some reference to\nthe emendation of it suggested by the Ancient Versions.  But little, I\nbelieve, of a systematic character has, as yet, been accomplished.  The\nRevisers mention that they have been obliged, in some few cases of\nextreme difficulty, to depart from the Massoretic text and adopt a\nreading from the Ancient Versions.  I regret to observe that it is stated\nby one of those connected with the forthcoming American revision of the\nOld Testament version that in nearly one hundred cases the marginal\nreferences to the Ancient Versions will be omitted.  Reasons are given,\nbut these could hardly have escaped the knowledge and observation of the\nlearned men by whom the references were inserted.  The Revisers also\nmention that where the Versions appeared to supply a very probable,\nthough not so absolutely necessary, correction as displacement of the\nMassoretic text, they have still felt it proper to place the reading in\nthe margin.\n\nThis recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient Versions by\nthe Revisers, though obviously in only a limited number of cases, seems\nto indicate the great good that may be expected from a more complete and\nsystematic use of these ancient authorities in reference to the current\ntext of the Old Testament.  At present the texts implied in them have, I\nbelieve, never yet been so closely analysed as to enable us to form any\njust estimate of their real critical value.  They have been used by\neditors, as in the case of Houbigant, but only in a limited and partial\nmanner.  Lists, I believe, are accessible of all the more important\nreadings suggested or implied by the Versions; but what is needed is far\nmore than this.  In the first place we require much more trustworthy\ntexts of the Versions themselves than are at present at our disposal.  In\nthe case of the Septuagint we may very shortly look forward to a\nthoroughly revised text; and a similar remark may probably be made in\nreference to the Vulgate, but I am not aware that much has been done in\nthe case of the Syriac {53}, and of other versions to which reference\nwould have to be made in any great critical attempt, such as a revision\nof the _textus receptus_ of the Old Testament.\n\nIf, however, a first need is trustworthy editions of the Versions, a\nsecond need appears to be a fuller knowledge of the Hebrew material, late\nin regard of antiquity though it may be, than was, at any rate, available\ntill very recently.  The new edition of the text of the Hebrew Bible by\nDr. Ginsburg, with its learned and voluminous introduction, may, and\nprobably does, supply this fuller knowledge; but as in regard of these\nmatters I can speak only as a novice, I can only reproduce the statement\ncommonly made by those who have a right to speak on such subjects, that\nthe collation of the Hebrew manuscripts that we already possess has been\nfar from complete.  There appears to have been the feeling that they all\nlead up to the Massoretic text, and that any particular variations from\nit need not be treated over-seriously; and yet surely we must regard it\nas possible that some of these negligible variations might concur with,\nand by their concurrence add weight to, readings already rendered\nprobable by the suggestive testimony of the Ancient Versions.  It may be\nright for me to add that the whole question was raised in 1886 by Dr.\nGreen and Dr. Schaff in a circular letter addressed to distinguished\nHebrews in Germany and elsewhere.  The answers are returned in German\n{55}, and are translated.  They are most of them interesting, though not\nvery encouraging.  The best of them seems to be the answer of Professor\nStrack, of Berlin.\n\nBut here I must pause.  The use made by the Revisers of these ancient\ndocuments has called out the foregoing comments, and has awakened the\nhope, which I now venture to express, that the critical use of the\nVersions may be expanded, and form a part of that systematic revision of\nthe text of the Old Testament which will not improbably form part of the\ncritical labours of the present century.\n\nII.  We may now turn to the New Testament, and to the revision of the\n_textus receptus_ of the New Testament which our rules necessitated, and\nwhich formed a very important and, it may be added, a very anxious part\nof our revision.\n\nAnd here, at the very outset, one general observation is absolutely\nnecessary.\n\nIt is very commonly said, and I fear believed by many to be true, that\nthe text adopted by the Revisers and afterwards published (in different\nforms) by the two University Presses, hardly differs at all from the\nafterwards published text of the two distinguished scholars and critics,\none of whom was called from us a few years ago, and the other of whom\nhas, to our great sorrow, only recently left us.  I allude, of course, to\nthe Greek Testament, now of world-wide reputation, of Westcott and Hort.\nWhat has been often asserted, and is still repeated, is this, that the\ntext had been in print for some time before it was finally published, and\nwas in the hands of the Revisers almost, if not quite, from the very\nfirst.  It was this, so the statement runs, that they really worked upon,\nand this that they assimilated.\n\nNow this I unhesitatingly declare, as I shall subsequently be able to\nprove, is contrary to the facts of the case.  It is perfectly true that\nour two eminent colleagues gave, I believe, to each one of us, from time\nto time, little booklets of their text as it then stood in print, but\nwhich we were always warned were not considered by the editors themselves\nas final.  These portions of their text were given to us, not to win us\nover to adopt it, but to enable us to see each proposed reading in its\ncontinuity.  How these booklets were used by the members of the Company\ngenerally, I know not.  I can only speak for myself; but I cannot\nsuppress the conviction that I was acting unconsciously in the same\nmanner as the great majority of the Company.  I only used the booklets\nfor occasional reference.  In preparing the portion of the sacred volume\non which we were to be engaged in the next session of the Company, I took\ndue note of the readings as well as of the renderings, but I formed my\njudgement independently on the evidence supplied to me by the notes of\nthe critical edition, whether that of Tischendorf or Tregelles, which I\nthen was in the habit of using.  This evidence was always fully stated to\nthe Company, nearly always by Dr. Scrivener, and it was upon the\ndiscussion of this evidence, and not on the reading of any particular\neditor, on which the decision of the Company was ultimately formed.  We\npaid in all cases great attention to the arguments of our two eminent\ncolleagues and our experienced colleague, Dr. Scrivener; but each\nquestion of reading, as it arose, was settled by the votes of the\nCompany.  The resulting text, as afterwards published by the Oxford\nUniversity Press, and edited by Archdeacon Palmer, was thus the direct\nwork of the Company, and may be rightly designated, as it will be in\nthese pages, as the Revisers' text.\n\nIt is of considerable importance that this should be borne in mind; for,\nin the angry vituperation which was directed against the Revisers' text,\nit was tacitly assumed that this text was practically identical with that\nof Westcott and Hort, and that the difficulties which are to be found in\nthis latter text (and some there certainly are) are all to be found in\nthe text of the Revisers.  How very far such an assumption is from the\ntrue state of the case can easily be shown by a simple comparison of one\ntext with the other.  Let us take an example.  I suppose there are very\nfew who can entertain the slightest doubt that in Acts xii. 35, St. Luke\ntells us that Barnabas and Saul returned _from_ Jerusalem after their\nmission was over, and took with them (from Jerusalem) St. Mark.  Now what\nis the reading of Westcott and Hort?--\"to Jerusalem\" with the Vatican\nManuscript, and a fair amount of external support.  We then turn at once\nto the Revisers' text and find that _from_ ([Greek text]) is maintained,\nin spite of the clever arguments which, in this case, can be urged for an\nintrinsically improbable reading, and, most likely, were urged at the\ntime, as I observe that the Revisers have allowed the \"to\" to appear in a\nmargin.\n\nI regret that I have never gone through the somewhat laborious process of\nminutely comparing the Revisers' text with the text of Westcott and Hort,\nbut I cannot help thinking that the example I have chosen is a typical\none, and does show the sort of relations between the two texts, when what\na recent and competent writer (Dr. Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin)\nconsiders to be the difficulties and anomalies and apparent perversities\nin the text of Westcott and Hort are compared with the decisions of the\nRevisers {59}.  There are, I believe, only sixty-four passages in the\nwhole revision, in which the text of the Revisers, when agreeing with the\ntext of Westcott and Hort, has not also the support of Lachmann, or\nTischendorf, or Tregelles.\n\nI observe that the above-named writer expresses his satisfaction that the\nRevised Version has not superseded the Authorised Version in our Churches\n{60a}, and that things which were read at Rome in the second century may\nstill be read in our own Churches in the nineteenth century.  This,\nperhaps, is a strong way of expressing his aversion to the text of\nWestcott and Hort, but it is not perfectly clear that the Revisers' text\nhas \"so closely\" followed the authority of these two eminent critics as\nto be open, on Dr. Salmon's part, to the same measure of aversion.  Until\nmore accurate evidence is forthcoming that the Revisers have shown in\ntheir text the same sort of studied disregard of Western variations as is\nplainly to be recognized in the text of Westcott and Hort, I can only\nfall back on my persuasion, as one who has put to the vote these critical\nquestions very many times, that systematic neglect of Western authority\ncannot fairly be brought home to the Revisers.  It is much to be\nregretted then, that in the very opening chapter of his interesting\nvolume, Dr. Salmon roundly states that Westcott and Hort exercised a\n\"predominating influence\" on their colleagues in the revision on the\nquestion of various readings {60b}, and that \"more than half of their\nbrother members of the Committee had given no special attention to the\nsubject.\"  Now, assuming that the word \"Committee\" has been here\naccidentally used for the more usual term Company, I am forced to say\nthat both statements are really incorrect.  I was permitted by God's\nmercy to be present at every meeting of the Company except two, and I can\ndistinctly say that I never observed any indication of this predominating\ninfluence.  We knew well that our two eminent colleagues had devoted many\nyears of their lives to the great work on which they were engaged; and we\npaid full deference to what they urged on each reading as it came before\nus, but in the end we decided for ourselves.  For it must not be\nforgotten that we had an eminent colleague (absent only eight times from\nour 407 meetings) who took a very different view of the critical evidence\nto that of Westcott and Hort, and never failed very fully, and often very\npersuasively, to express it.  I am of course alluding to my old friend\nDr. Scrivener.  It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and\nDr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was\nplaced before the Company, and the Company enabled to decide on a full\nknowledge of the critical facts and reasonings in reference to the\nreading under consideration.\n\nNow it is also not correct to say of the Company that finally decided the\nquestion, that more than half \"had given no special attention to the\nsubject.\"  If this refers to the matter _subsequently_ put forward by Dr.\nHort in the introductory volume to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,\nto the clever and instructive genealogical method, and to the numberless\napplications of it that have given their Greek Testament the pre-eminence\nit deservedly holds--if this be the meaning of the Provost's estimate of\nthe critical knowledge of the Company, I should not have taken any\nexception to the words.  But if \"the subject\" refers to the general\ncritical knowledge at the time when the Company came together, then I\nmust gently protest against an estimate of the general critical\ncapabilities of the Company that is, really and truly, incorrect.  All\nbut three or four are now resting with God, and among these twenty they\nwere not few who had a good and full knowledge of the New Testament\ntextual criticism of the generation that had just passed away.  Among\nthem were not only the three experts whom I have mentioned, but editors\nof portions of the New Testament such as Bishop Lightfoot and others,\nprincipals of large educational colleges both in England and Scotland,\nand scholars like Dean Scott, who were known to take great interest in\nquestions of textual criticism.  A few of these might almost be\nconsidered as definitely experts, but all taken together certainly made a\nvery competent body to whose independent judgement the settlement of\ndifficult critical questions could be safely committed.\n\nAnd, as I venture to think, the text which has been constructed from\ntheir decisions, their resultant text as it might be called, will show\nthat the Revisers' text is an independent text on which great reliance\ncan be placed.  It is the text which I always use myself in my general\nreading of the New Testament, and I deliberately regard it as one of the\ntwo best texts of the New Testament at present extant; the other being\nthe cheap and convenient edition of Professor Nestle, bearing the title\n\"Novum Testamentum Graece, cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris\nmanu scriptis collecto.  Stuttgart, 1898.\"  This edition is issued by the\nWurtemberg Bible Society, and will, as I hear, not improbably be adopted\nby our own Bible Society as their Greek Testament of the future.\n\nThe reason why I prefer these two texts for the general reading of the\nsacred volume is this, that they both have much in common with the text\nof Westcott and Hort, but are free from those peculiarities and, I fear I\nmust add, perversities, which do here and there mark the text of that\njustly celebrated edition.  To Doctors Westcott and Hort all faithful\nstudents of the New Testament owe a debt of lasting gratitude which it is\nimpossible to overestimate.  Still, in the introductory volume by Dr.\nHort, assumptions have been made, and principles laid down, which in\nseveral places have plainly affected the text, and led to the maintenance\nof readings which, to many minds, it will seem really impossible to\naccept.  An instance has been given above on page 58, and this is by no\nmeans a solitary instance.\n\nHaving now shown fairly, I hope, and clearly the thoroughly independent\ncharacter of the text which I have called the Revisers' text, I will pass\nonward, and show the careful manner in which it was constructed, and the\ncircumstances under which we have it in the continuous form in which it\nhas been published by the Press of the University of Oxford.\n\nTo do this, it will be necessary to refer to the rule under which we were\ndirected to carry out this portion of our responsible work.  We had two\nthings to do--to revise the Authorised Version, and also to revise under\ncertain specified limitations the Greek text from which the Authorised\nVersion was made; or, in other words, the fifth edition of Beza's Greek\nTestament, published in the year 1698.  The rule under which this second\nportion of our work was to be performed was as follows: \"That the text to\nbe adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating;\nand [let this be noted] that when the text so adopted differs from that\nfrom which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated\nin the margin.\"  Such was the rule in regard of the text, and such was\nthe instruction as to the mode of notifying any alterations that it might\nhave been found necessary to make.\n\nLet us deal first with the direction as to notifying the alterations.\nNow as it was soon found practically impossible to place all the\nalterations in a margin which would certainly be needed for alternative\nrenderings, and for such matters as usually appear in a margin, we left\nthe University Presses to publish, in such manner as they might think\nmost convenient, the deviations from the Greek text presumed to underlie\nthe Authorised Version.  The Cambridge University Press entrusted to Dr.\nScrivener the publication of the Received Text with the alterations of\nthe Revisers placed at the foot of the page.  The Oxford University Press\nadopted the more convenient method of letting the alterations form part\nof the continuous text (the readings they displaced being at the foot of\nthe page), and entrusted the editing of the volume to Archdeacon Palmer\n(one of our Company) who, as we know, performed the duty with great care\nand accuracy.  Hence the existence of what I term throughout this address\nas the Revisers' text.\n\nWe can now turn to the first part of the rule and describe in general\nterms the mode of our procedure.  It differs very slightly from the mode\ndescribed in the preface of the Revisers of the Old Testament.  The verse\non which we were engaged was read by the Chairman.  The first question\nasked was, whether there was any difference of reading in the Greek text\nwhich required our consideration.  If there was none, we proceeded with\nthe second part of our work, the consideration of the rendering.  If\nthere was a reading in the Greek text that demanded our consideration it\nwas at once discussed, and commonly in the following manner.  Dr.\nScrivener stated briefly the authorities, whether manuscripts, ancient\nversions, or patristic citations, of which details most of us were\nalready aware.  If the alteration was one for which the evidence was\npatently and decidedly preponderating, it was at once adopted, and the\nwork went onward.  If, however, it was a case where it was doubtful\nwhether the evidence for the alteration _was_ thus decidedly\npreponderating, then a discussion, often long, interesting, and\ninstructive, followed.  Dr. Hort, if present (and he was seldom absent;\nonly forty-five times out of the 407 meetings) always took part, and\nfinally the vote was taken, and the suggested alteration either adopted\nor rejected.  If adopted, due note was taken by the secretary, and, if it\nwas thought a case for a margin, the competing reading was therein\nspecified.  If there was a plain difficulty at coming to a decision, and\nthe passage was one of real importance, the decision was not uncommonly\npostponed to a subsequent meeting, and notice duly given to all the\nmembers of the Company.  And so the great work went on to the end of the\nfirst revision; the members of the Company acquiring more and more\nknowledge and experience, and their decisions becoming more and more\njudicial and trustworthy.\n\nFew, I think, on reading this simple and truthful description, could fail\nto place some confidence in results thus patiently and laboriously\narrived at.  Few, I think, could forbear a smile when they call to mind\nthe passionate vituperation which at first was lavished on the critical\nefforts of the Revisers of the text that bears the scarcely correct name\nof the _textus ab omnibus receptus_.\n\nBut what I have specified was only the first part of our responsible\nwork.  By the memoranda of agreement between the English Companies and\nthe American Committee, it had to be communicated to the American Company\nof the Revisers of the Authorised Version of the New Testament, among\nwhom were some whose names were well and honorably known in connexion\nwith textual criticism.  Our work, with the American criticisms and\nsuggestions, had then to undergo the second revision.  The greater part\nof the decisions relating to the text that were arrived at in the first\nrevision were accepted as final; but many were reopened at the second\nrevision, and the critical experience of the Company, necessarily\nimproved as it had been by the first revision, finally tested by the\ntwo-thirds majority the reopened decisions which at the first revision\nhad been carried by simple majorities.  The results of this second\nrevision were then, in accordance with the agreement, communicated to the\nAmerican Company; but, in the sequel, as will be seen in the lists of the\nfinal differences between ourselves and the American Company, the\ncritical differences were but few, and, so far as I can remember, of no\nserious importance.\n\nThe critical labours of the Revisers did not however terminate with the\nsecond revision.  The cases were many where the evidence for the readings\neither adopted or retained in the text was only slightly stronger than\nthat of readings which were in competition with it.  Of this it was\nobviously necessary that some final intimation should be given to the\nreader, as the subsequent discovery of additional evidence might be held\nby a competent critic to invalidate the right of the adopted reading to\nhold its place in the text.  This intimation could only be given by a\nfinal marginal note, for which, as we know, by the arrangement of the\nUniversity Presses (see p. 66), our page was now available.\n\nThese notes were objected to by one of our critics as quite unprecedented\nadditions; but it will be remembered that there are such notes in the\nmargin of the Authorised Version, though of course few in number\n(thirty-five, according to Dr. Scrivener), textual criticism in 1611\nbeing only in its infancy.\n\nThe necessity for the insertion of such notes was clearly shown in a\npamphlet that appeared shortly after the publication of the Revised\nVersion, and was written by two members of the Company.  The three cases\nin which these notes appeared certainly to be required were thus stated\nby the two writers: \"First, when the text which seemed to underlie the\nAuthorised Version was condemned by a decided preponderance of evidence,\nbut yet was ancient in its character, and belonged to an early line of\ntransmission.  Secondly, when there were such clear tokens of corruption\nin the reading on which the Authorised Version was based, or such a\nconsent of authority against it, that no one could seriously argue for\nits retention, but it was not equally clear which of the other competing\nreadings had the best claim to occupy the vacant place.  In such a case\nthere was not, in truth, decidedly preponderant evidence, except against\nthe text of Beza, and some notice of this fact seemed to be required by\ncritical equity.  The third and last case was when the text which, as\nrepresented in the Authorised Version, was retained because the competing\nreading had not decidedly preponderant evidence (though the balance of\nevidence was in its favour), and so could not under the rule be admitted.\nIn such a case again critical equity required a notice of the facts in\nthe margin.\"\n\nThis quotation, I may remark in passing, is not only useful in explaining\nwhen and where marginal notes were demonstrably needed, but also in\nshowing how carefully such questions were considered, and how\nconscientiously the rules were observed under which our work was to be\ncarried out.\n\nSuch were the textual labours of the Company.  They were based on, and\nwere the results of, the critical knowledge that had been slowly acquired\nduring the 115 years that separated the early suggestions of Bentley from\nthe pioneer text of Lachmann in 1831; and, in another generation, had\nbecome expanded and matured in the later texts of Tischendorf, and still\nmore so in the trustworthy and consistent text of our countryman\nTregelles.  The labours of these three editors were well known to the\ngreater part of the Revisers and generally known to all; and it was on\nthese labours, and on the critical methods adopted by these great\neditors, that our own text was principally formed.  We of course owed\nmuch to the long labours of our two eminent colleagues, Dr. Westcott and\nDr. Hort.  Some of us know generally the principles on which they had\nbased their yet unpublished text, and were to some extent aware of the\nmanner in which they had grouped their critical authorities, and of the\ngenealogical method, which, under their expansion of it, has secured for\ntheir text the widespread acceptance it has met with both at home and\nabroad.\n\nOf these things some of us had a competent knowledge, but the majority\nhad no special knowledge of the genealogical method.  They did know the\nfacts on which it was based--the ascertained trustworthiness of the\nancient authorities as compared with the later uncial, and the cursive\nmanuscripts, the general characteristics of these ancient authorities,\nthe alliances that were to be traced between some of them, and the\ncountries with which they were particularly connected.  This the majority\nknew generally as a part of the largely increased knowledge which the\npreceding forty or fifty years, and the labours of Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nand (so far as he had then published) Tregelles, had placed at the\ndisposal of students of the Greek Testament.  It was on this general\nknowledge, and not on any portions of a partly printed text, that the\ndecisions of the Company were based; these decisions, however, by the\nvery nature of the case and the use of common authorities, were\nconstantly in accordance with the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and\nTregelles, and so with the subsequently printed text of Westcott and\nHort.\n\nSuch a text, thus independently formed, and yet thus in harmony with the\nresults of the most tested critical researches of our times, has surely\ngreat claims on our unreserved acceptance, and does justify us in\nstrongly pleading that a version of such a text, if faithfully executed,\nshould, for the very truth's sake, be publicly read in our Churches.\n\nThat the Revised Version has been faithfully executed, will I hope be\nshown fully and clearly in the succeeding chapter.  For the present my\ncare has been to show that the text of which it is a version, and which I\nhave called the Revisers' Text because it underlies their revision, and,\nas such, has been published by the Oxford University Press, is in my\njudgement the best balanced text that has appeared in this country.  I\nhave mentioned with it (p. 63) the closely similar text of the well-known\nProfessor Nestle, but as I have not gone through the laborious task of\ncomparing the text, verse by verse, with that of the Revisers, I speak\nonly in reference to our own country.  I have compared the two texts in\nseveral crucial and important passages--such for example as St. John i.\n18--and have found them identical.  Bishop Westcott, I know, a short time\nbefore his lamented death, expressed to the Committee of the Bible\nSociety his distinct approval of their adopting for future copies of the\nSociety's Greek Testament Professor Nestle's text, as published by the\nWurtemberg Bible Society.\n\nI have now, I trust, fairly shown the independence of the Revisers' Text,\nand have, not without reason, complained of my friend Provost Salmon's\nestimate of its dependence on the text and earnestly exerted influence of\nDr. Hort and Dr. Westcott.  Of course, as I have shown, there is, and\nmust be, much that is identical in the two texts; but, to fall back on\nstatistics, there are, I believe, more than two hundred places in which\nthe two texts differ, and in nearly all of them--if I may venture to\nexpress my own personal opinion--the reading of the Revisers' Text is\ncritically to be preferred.  Most of these two hundred places seem to be\nprecisely places in which the principles adopted by Westcott and Hort\nneed some corrective modifications.  Greatly as I reverence the unwearied\npatience, the exhaustive research, and the critical sagacity of these two\neminent, and now lamented, members of our former Company, I yet cannot\nresist the conviction that Dr. Salmon in his interesting Criticism of the\nText of the New Testament has successfully indicated three or more\nparticulars which must cause some arrest in our final judgement on the\ntext of Westcott and Hort.\n\nIn the first case it cannot be denied that, in the introductory volume,\nDr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypotheses\ninto the realm of established facts.  Dr. Salmon specifies one, and that\na very far-reaching instance, in which, in the debatable question whether\nthere really was an authoritative revision of the so-called Syrian text\nat about A.D. 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian revision as a _vera\ncausa_, as opposed to a hypothetical possibility.  This tendency in a\nsubject so complicated as that of textual criticism must be taken note of\nby the student, and must introduce some element of hesitation in the\nacceptance of confidently expressed decisions when the subject-matter may\nstill be very plainly debatable.\n\nIn the second place, in the really important matter of the nomenclature\nof the ancient types of text which, since the days of Griesbach, and to\nsome extent before him, have been recognized by all critical scholars, it\ndoes not seem possible to accept the titles of the fourfold division of\nthese families of manuscripts which have been adopted by Westcott and\nHort.  Griesbach, as is well known, adopted the terms Western,\nAlexandrian, and Constantinopolitan, for which there is much to be said.\nWestcott and Hort recognize four groups.  To the first and considerably\nthe largest they give the title of Syrian, answering to some extent to\nthe Constantinopolitan of Griesbach; to the second they continue the\ntitle of Western; to the third they give the title of Alexandrian, though\nof a numerically more restricted character than the Alexandrian of\nGriesbach; to the fourth, an exceedingly small group, apparently\nconsisting of practically not more than two members, they give the title\nof Neutral, as being free alike from Syrian, Western, and Alexandrian\ncharacteristics.  On this Neutral family or group Westcott and Hort lay\nthe greatest critical stress, and in it they place the greatest reliance.\nSuch is their distribution, and such the names they give to the families\ninto which manuscripts are to be divided and grouped.\n\nThe objections to this arrangement and to this nomenclature are, as Dr.\nSalmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and serious.  In the first\nplace, the title Syrian, though Dr. Salmon allows it to pass, is very\nmisleading, especially to the student.  It is liable to be confounded\nwith the term Syriac, with which it has not and is not intended to have\nany special connexion, and it fails to convey the amplitude of the family\nit designates.  If it is to be retained at all, it must be with the\nprefix suggested by Dr. Schaff--the group being styled as the\nGraeco-Syrian.  But this is of slight moment when compared with the\nserious objections to the term Neutral, as this term certainly tends in\npractice to give to two manuscripts or even, in some cases, to one of\nthem (the Codex Vaticanus), a preponderating supremacy which cannot be\nproperly conceded when authorities of a high character are found to be\nranged on the other side.  There are also other grave objections which\nare convincingly put forward by Dr. Salmon in the chapter he has devoted\nto the subject of the nomenclature of the two editors.\n\nWe shall be wise therefore if we cancel the term Neutral and use the term\nOlder Alexandrian, as distinguished from the later Alexandrian, and so\nfall back on the threefold division of Alexandrian (earlier and later),\nGraeco-Syrian, and Western, though for this last-mentioned term a more\nexpressive designation may perhaps hereafter be found.\n\nThe third drawback to the unqualified acceptance of the text of Westcott\nand Hort is their continuous and studied disregard of Western\nauthorities; and this, notwithstanding that among these authorities are\nincluded the singular and not unfrequently suggestive Codex Bezae--of\nwhich Dr. Blass has lately made so remarkable a use--the Old Latin\nVersion, the Graeco-Latin manuscripts, and, to some extent, the Old\nSyriac Version, all of them authorities to which the designation of\nWestern is commonly applied.  To this grave drawback Dr. Salmon has\ndevoted a chapter to which the attention of the student may very\nprofitably be directed.  Here I cannot enter into details, but of this I\nam persuaded, that if there should be any fresh discovery of textual\nauthorities, it is by no means unlikely that they may be of a Western\ncharacter, and if so, that many decisions in the text of Westcott and\nHort will have to be modified by some editor of the future.  At any rate,\ntaking the critical evidence as now we find it, we cannot but feel that\nDr. Salmon has made out his case, and that in the edition of which now we\nare speaking there has been an undue, and even a contemptuous, disregard\nof Western authorities.\n\nHere I must close this address, yet not without expressing the hope that\nI may have induced some of you, my Reverend Brethren, to look into these\nthings for yourselves.  Do not be deterred by the thought that to do so\nyou must read widely and consult many authorities.  This is really not\nnecessary for the acquiring of an intelligent interest in the text of the\nGreek Testament.  With a good edition (with appended critical\nauthorities), whether that of Tischendorf or of Tregelles, and with\nguidance such as that which you will find in the compendious _Companion\nto the Greek Testament_ of Dr. Schaff, you will be able to begin, and\nwhen you have seriously begun, you will not be, I am persuaded, very\nlikely to leave off.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS IV\nNATURE OF THE RENDERINGS\n\n\nFrom the text we now turn to the renderings, and to the general\nprinciples that were followed, both in the Old and in the New Testament.\nThe revision of the English text was in each case subject to the same\ngeneral rule, viz. \"To introduce as few alterations as possible into the\nText of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness\"; but,\nowing to the great difference between the two languages, the Hebrew and\nthe Greek, the application of the rule was necessarily different, and the\nresults not easily comparable the one with the other.\n\nIt will be best then to consider the renderings in the two Testaments\nseparately, and to form the best estimate we can of their character and\nof their subordination to the general rule, with due regard to the widely\ndifferent nature of the structure and grammatical principles of the two\nlanguages through which God has been pleased to reveal His truth to the\nchildren of men.\n\nI.  We begin then with the Revised Version of the Old Testament, and\nnaturally turn for general guidance to the Preface of those who were\nengaged in the long, diversified, and responsible work.  Their general\nprinciples as to departures from the Authorised Version would appear to\nbe included in the following clearly-specified particulars.  They\ndeparted from the Authorised Version (_a_) where they did not agree with\nit as to the meaning or construction of a word or sentence; (_b_) where\nit was necessary, for the sake of uniformity, to render such parallel\npassages as were identical in Hebrew by the same English words; (_c_)\nwhere the English of the Authorised Version was liable to be\nmisunderstood by reason of its being archaic or obscure; (_d_) where the\nrendering of an earlier English version seemed preferable; and (_e_)\nwhere, by an apparently slight change, it was possible to bring out more\nfully the meaning of a passage of which the translation was substantially\naccurate.\n\nThese principles, which I have been careful to specify in the exact words\nof the Revisers, will appear to every impartial reader to be fully in\nharmony with the principle of faithfulness; and will be found--if an\noutsider may presume to make a passing comment--to have been carried out\nwith pervasive consistency and uniformity.\n\nThe Revisers further notice certain particulars of which the general\nreader should take full note, so much of the random criticisms of the\nrevised text (especially in the New Testament) having been due to a\ncomplete disregard in each case of the Preface, and of the reasons given\nfor changes which long experience had shown to be both reasonable and\nnecessary.\n\nThe first particular is the important question of the rendering of the\nword \"JEHOVAH.\"  Here the Revisers have thought it advisable to follow\nthe usage of the Authorised Version, and not to insert the word uniformly\nin place of \"LORD\" or \"GOD,\" which words when printed in small capitals\nrepresent the words substituted by Jewish custom for the ineffable Name\naccording to the vowel points by which it is distinguished.  To this\nusage the Revisers have steadily adhered with the exception of a very few\npassages in which the introduction of a proper name seemed to be\nrequired.  In this grave matter, as we all probably know, the American\nCompany has expressed its dissent from the decision of the English\nCompany, and has adopted the proper name wherever it occurs in the Hebrew\ntext for \"the LORD\" and \"GOD.\"  Most English readers will agree with our\nRevisers.  It may indeed be said, now that we can read the American text\ncontinuously, that there certainly are many passages in which the proper\nname seems to come upon eye or ear with a serious and appropriate force;\nstill the reverence with which we are accustomed to treat what the\nRevisers speak of as \"the ineffable Name\" will lead most of us to\nsacrifice the passages, where the blessed name may have an impressive\nforce, to the reverential uniformity of our Authorised Version, and to\nthe latent fear that frequent iteration might derogate from the solemnity\nwith which we instinctively clothe the ever-blessed name of Almighty God.\n\nThe next particular relates to terms of natural history.  Here changes\nhave only been made where it was certain that the Authorised Version was\nincorrect, and highly probable that the word substituted was right.\nWhere doubt existed, the text was left unchanged, but the alternative\nword was placed in the margin.  In regard of other terms, of which the\nold rendering was certainly wrong, as in the case of the Hebrew term\n_Asherah_ (probably the wooden symbol of a goddess), the Revisers have\nused the word, whether in the singular or plural, as a proper name.  In\nthe case of the Hebrew term \"Sheol\" (corresponding to the Greek term\n\"Hades\"), variously rendered in the Authorised Version by the words\n\"grave,\" \"pit,\" and \"hell,\" the Revisers have adopted in the historical\nbooks the first or second words with a marginal note, \"Heb. _Sheol_,\" but\nin the poetical books they have reversed this arrangement.  The American\nRevisers, on the contrary, specify that in all cases where the word\noccurs in the Hebrew text they place it unchanged in the English text,\nand without any margin.  The case is a difficult one, but the English\narrangement is to be preferred, as the reader would not so plainly need a\npreliminary explanation.\n\nThe last case that it here seems necessary to allude to is the change\neverywhere of the words \"the tabernacle of the congregation\" into \"the\ntent of meeting,\" as the former words convey an entirely wrong sense.\nThese and the use of several other terms are carefully noted and\nexplained by the Revisers, and will, I hope, induce every careful reader\nof their revision to make it his duty to study their prefatory words.\nThe almost unavoidable differences between them and the American\nRevisers, as to our own language, are alluded to by them in terms both\nfriendly and wise, and may be considered fully to express the sentiments\nof the New Testament Company, by whom the subject is less precisely\nalluded to.\n\nIn passing from the Preface to the great work which it introduces, I feel\nthe greatest difficulty, as a member of a different Company, in making\nmore than a few very general comments.  In fact, I should scarcely have\nventured to do even this, had I not met with a small but very instructive\nvolume on the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament\nwritten by one of the American Revisers, and published at New York some\nfifteen or sixteen years ago.  The volume is entitled--perhaps with\nexcusable brevity--_A Companion to the Revised Old Testament_.  The\nwriter was Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch\nChurch of New York, from whose preface I learn that he was the only\npastor in the Company, the others being professors in theological\nseminaries, and representing seven different denominations and nine\ndifferent institutions.  The book is written with great modesty, and as\nfar as I can judge, with a good working knowledge of Hebrew.  The writer\ndisclaims in it the position of speaking in any degree for the Company of\nwhich he was a member, but mentions that his undertaking was approved of\nby his colleagues, and received the assistance, more or less, of all of\nthem.  He was a member of the Company during the last ten years of its\nlabours.\n\nI can recommend this useful volume to any student of the Old Testament\nwho is desirous to see a selected list of the changes made by the\nRevisers in the Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetical Books, and\nProphetical Books.  These changes are given in four chapters, and in most\ncases are accompanied by explanatory comments, which from their tenor\noften seem to be reminiscences of corporate discussion.  I mention these\nparticulars as I am not aware of any similar book on the Old Testament\nwritten by any one of the English Company.  If there is such a book, I do\nsincerely hope the writer will forgive me for not having been so\nfortunate as to meet with it.\n\nThe remaining comments I shall venture to make on the rendering of the\nOld Testament will rest on the general knowledge I have acquired of this\ncarefully-executed and conservative revision, and on some consideration\nof the many illustrations which Dr. Chambers has selected in his\ninteresting manual.  The impression that has long been left on my mind by\nthe serious reading of the Old Testament in the Revised Version is that\nnot nearly enough has been said of the value of the changes that have\nbeen made, and of the strong argument they furnish for the reading of the\nRevision in the public services of the Church.  Let any serious person\nread the Book of Job with the two English versions in parallel columns,\nand form a sober opinion on the comparison--his judgement I am confident\nwill be, that if the Revision of this Book be a fair sample of the\nRevision generally, our congregations have a just right to claim that the\nRevised Version of the Old Testament should be publicly read in their\nchurches.  Ours is a Bible-loving country, and the English Bible in its\nmost correct form can never be rightly withheld from our public\nministrations.\n\nI shall now close this portion of the present Address with a few comments\non the four parts of the Revision to which I have already alluded--the\nPentateuch, and the Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical Books of the\nOld Testament.\n\nWhat the careful reader of Genesis will not fail to observe is the number\nof passages in which comparatively small alterations give a new light to\ndetails of the sacred narrative which, in general reading, are commonly\ncompletely overlooked.  A new colouring, so to speak, is given to the\nwhole, and rectifications of prevailing conceptions not unfrequently\nintroduced, either in the text or, as often happens, by means of the\nmargin, where they could hardly have been anticipated.  The prophecy of\nJacob as to the future of his children (chap. xlix) will supply an\ninstance.  In the character of Reuben few of us would understand more\nthan general unsteadiness and changefulness in purpose and in act, but a\nglance at the margin will show that impulse and excitability were plainly\nelements in his nature which led him into the grievous and hateful sin\nfor which his father deposed him from the excellency of a first-born.\n\nWhat has been said of the Book of Genesis is equally applicable to the\nremainder of the Pentateuch.  The object throughout is elucidation, not\nsimply correction of errors but removal of obscurity, if not by changes\nintroduced into the printed text, yet certainly always by the aid of the\nmargin; as, for example, in the somewhat difficult passage of Exodus\nxvii. 16, where really, it would seem, that the margin might rightly have\nhad its place in the text.  Sometimes the correction of what might seem\ntrivial error, as in Exodus xxxiv. 33, gives an intelligible view of the\nwhole details of the circumstance specified.  Moses put on the veil after\nhe had ceased speaking with them.  While he was speaking to them he was\nspeaking as God's representative.  In Numbers xi. 25 the correction of a\nmistranslation removes what might otherwise lead to a very grave\nmisconception, viz. that the gift of prophecy was continuous in the case\nof the whole elderhood.  In the chapters relating to Balaam,\nindependently of the alterations that are made in the language of his\nremarkable utterances, the mere fact of their being arranged rhythmically\ncould not fail to cause the public reader, almost unconsciously, to\nchange his tone of voice, and to make the reading of the prophecy more\ndistinct and impressive.  Among many useful changes in Deuteronomy one\nmay certainly be noticed (chap. xx. 19), in which the obscure and\ndifficult clause in regard of the tree in the neighbourhood of the\nbesieged city is made at any rate intelligible.\n\nIn the historical books attention may be particularly called to the Song\nof Deborah and Barak, in which there are several important and\nelucidatory corrections, and in which the rhythmic arrangement will be\nfelt to bear force and impressiveness both to reader and to hearer.  In\nthe remaining Books changes will be found fewer in number and less\nstriking; but occasionally, as for example in 1 Kings xx. 27, we come\nacross changes that startle us by their unlooked-for character, but\nwhich, if correct, add a deeper degradation to the outpoured blood of\nAhab in the pool of Samaria.\n\nOf the poetical Books, I have already alluded to the Book of Job and to\nthe high character of the Revision.  The changes in this noble poem are\nmany, and were especially needed, for the rendering of the Book of Job\nhas always been felt to be one of the weakest portions of the great work\nof the Revisers of 1611.  Illustrations I am unable to give, in a cursory\nnotice like the present, but I may again press the Revisers' version of\nthis deeply interesting Book on the serious attention of every earnest\nstudent of the Old Testament.\n\nIt is difficult to say much on the Revised Version of the Book of Psalms,\nas Coverdale's Version, as we have it in our Prayer Book, so completely\noccupies the foreground of memory and devotional interest, that I fear\ncomparatively few study the Bible Version or the careful and conservative\nwork of the Revisers.  This Revision, however, of the version of the Book\nof Psalms deserves more attention than it appears to have received.  Not\nonly will the faithful reader find in it the necessary corrections of the\nversion of 1611, but clear guidance as to the meaning of the sometimes\nutterly unintelligible renderings of the version of the Great Bible which\nstill holds its place in our Prayer Books.  To take two examples: let the\nreader look at the Authorised Version and Prayer Book Version of Psalm\nlxviii. 16, and of lxxxiv. 5, 6, and contrast with both the rendering of\nthe Revised Version.  This last-mentioned rendering will be found, as I\nhave said, to correct the Authorised Version, and (especially in the\nsecond passage) to remove what is unintelligible in the Prayer Book\nversion.  It may thus be used by the Prayer Book reader of the Psalms as\na ready and easily accessible means of arriving at the real meaning of\nthe many ambiguities and obscurities which long familiarity with the\nPrayer Book Version has led him to pass over without any particular\nnotice.  The revision of the Prayer Book Version has been long felt to be\na very real necessity.  To read and to hear read in the daily services of\nthe Church what, in parts, cannot be understood can never be spiritually\ngood for reader or hearer.  And yet, such is the really devout\nconservatism of the bulk of our congregations, that though a careful\nrevision, sympathetically executed, has been strongly urged by some of\nour most earnest scholars and divines, it is more than doubtful whether\nsuch a revision ever will be carried out.  If this be so, it only remains\nfor us so to encourage, in our schools and in our Bible classes, the\nefficient explanatory help of the Revised Version.  If this is steadily\ndone, nearly all that is at present obscure or unintelligible in the\nPrayer Book Version will no longer remain so to the greater part of our\nworshippers.\n\nOf the remaining Poetical Books the revision of the Authorised Version of\nthe Song of Solomon must be specially noticed.  In the common version the\ndramatic element is almost entirely lost, the paragraphs are imperfectly\nnoted, and obscurities not a few the inevitable consequence.  In a large\ndegree these serious imperfections are removed, and the whole tenor of\nthis exquisite poem made clear to the general reader.  The margin will\nshow the great care bestowed on the poem by the Revisers; and the fewness\nand trifling nature of the changes maintained by the American Company\nwill also show, in a confessedly difficult Book, the somewhat remarkable\namount of the agreement between the two Companies.  On the Prophetical\nBooks I do not feel qualified to speak except in very general terms; and\nfor illustrations must refer the reader to the large list of the\ncorrected renderings, especially of the prophecy of Isaiah, in the useful\nwork of Dr. Chambers, who has devoted at least eleven pages to the\ndetails of the Revisers' work on the Evangelist of the Old Covenant.  The\nimpression which the consideration of these details leaves on the mind of\nthe reader will be, I am confident, the same as that which is I believe\nfelt by all professed Hebrew scholars who have examined the version, viz.\nthat it is not only faithful and thorough, but often rises to a very high\nlevel of poetic utterance.  Let any one read aloud in the Revised Version\nthe well-known passage, chap. xiv. 12-23, already nobly rendered in the\nOld Version, and ask himself if the seemingly slight and trivial changes\nhave not maintained this splendid utterance at a uniform height of\nsustained and eloquent vigour.\n\nIn the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the changes are less striking\nand noticeable, not however from any diminished care in the work of\nrevision, but from the tenor of the prophecies being less familiar to the\ngeneral reader.  Four pages of instructive illustrations are supplied by\nDr. Chambers in the case of each of the two prophecies.  The more\nnoticeable changes in Daniel and Hosea are also specified by Dr.\nChambers, but the remainder of the minor prophets, with perhaps the\nexception of Habakkuk, are passed over with but little illustrative\nnotice.  A very slight inspection however of these difficult prophecies\nwill certainly show two things--first, that the Revisers of 1611 did\ntheir work in this portion of Holy Scripture less successfully than\nelsewhere; secondly, that the English and American Revisers--between whom\nthe differences are here noticeably very few--laboured unitedly and\nsuccessfully in keeping their revision of the preceding version of these\nprophecies fully up to the high level of the rest of their work.\n\nII.  I now pass onward to the consideration of the renderings in the\nRevised Version of the New Testament.\n\nThe object and purpose of the consideration will be exactly the same, as\nin the foregoing pages, to show the faithful thoroughness of the\nRevision, but the manner of showing this will be somewhat different to\nthe method I have adopted in the foregoing portion of this Address.  I\nshall not now bring before you examples of the faithful and suggestive\naccuracy of the revision, for to do this adequately would far exceed the\nlimits of these Addresses; and further, if done would far fall short of\nthe instructive volume of varied and admirably arranged illustrations\nwritten only four years ago by a member of the Company {96}, now, alas,\nno longer with us, of which I shall speak fully in my next Address.\n\nWhat I shall now do will be to show that the principles on which the\nversion of the New Testament was based have been in no degree affected by\nthe copious literature connected with the language of the Greek Testament\nand its historical position which has appeared since the Revision was\ncompleted.  It is only quite lately that the Revisers have been\nrepresented as being insufficiently acquainted, in several particulars,\nwith the Greek of the New Testament, and in a word, being twenty years\nbehind what is now known on the subject {97}.  Such charges are easily\nmade, and may at first sight seem very plausible, as the last fifteen or\ntwenty years have brought with them an amount of research in the language\nof the Greek Testament which might be thought to antiquate some results\nof the Revision, and to affect to some extent the long labours of those\nwho took part in it.  The whole subject then must be fairly considered,\nespecially in such an Address as the present, in which the object is to\nset forth the desirableness and rightfulness of using the version in the\npublic services of the Church.\n\nBut first a few preliminary comments must be made on the manner and\nprinciples in which the changes of rendering have been introduced into\nthe venerable Version which was intrusted to us to be revised.\n\nThe foremost principle to be alluded to is the one to which we adhered\nsteadily and persistently during the whole ten years of our labour--the\nprinciple of faithfulness to the original language in which it pleased\nAlmighty God that His saving truth should be revealed to the children of\nmen.  As the lamented Bishop of Durham says most truly and forcibly in\nhis instructive \"Lessons on the Revised Version of the New Testament\n{98a};\" \"Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was the\ncentral aim of the Revisers {98b}.\"  Faithfulness, but to what?\nCertainly not to \"the sense and spirit of the original {98b},\" as our\ncritics contended must have been meant by the rule,--but to the original\nin its plain grammatical meaning as elicited by accurate interpretation.\nThis I can confidently state was the intended meaning of the word when it\nappeared in the draft rule that was submitted to the Committee of\nConvocation.  So it was understood by them; and so, I may add, it was\nunderstood by the Company, because I can clearly remember a very full\ndiscussion on the true meaning of the word at one of the early meetings\nof the Company.  Some alteration had been proposed in the rendering of\nthe Greek to which objection was made that it did not come under the rule\nand principle of faithfulness.  This led to a general, and, as it proved,\na final discussion.  Bishop Lightfoot, I remember, took an earnest part\nin it.  He contended that our revision must be a true and thorough one;\nthat such a meeting as ours could not be assembled for many years to\ncome, and that if the rendering was plainly more accurate and more true\nto the original, it ought not to be put aside as incompatible with some\nsupposed aspect of the rule of faithfulness.  Proposals were often set\naside without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not \"worth\nwhile\" to make them, and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of a\nfamiliar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal being\nwithdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, and\nnot from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness.  If the\nproposal was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and the\nmatter authoritatively settled.\n\nThe contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisers\ndeliberately violated the principles under which the work was committed\nto them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, entirely\nerroneous.  I have dwelt upon this matter because when properly\nunderstood it clears away more than half of the objections that have been\nurged against our Revision.  Of the remainder I cannot but agree with\ngood Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision--and the\ncriticisms were of every form and kind \"pedantry, spiritless literality,\nirritating triviality, destroyed rhythm,\" and so forth--no criticism ever\ncame upon us by surprise.  The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heard\nin the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their conclusions they\nhave heard since; and he goes on to say that no restatement of old\narguments had in the least degree shaken his confidence in the general\nresults.  Such words from one now, alas, no longer with us, but whose\nmemory we cherish as one of the most wide-minded as well as truth-seeking\nof the biblical scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure the\npartially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its real\ntrustworthiness and fidelity.  But we must not confine our attention\nsimply to the renderings that hold a place in the text of the Revised\nVersion.  We must take into our consideration a very instructive portion\nof the work of the Revisers which is, I fear, utterly neglected by the\ngeneral reader--the alternative readings and renderings that hold a place\nin the margin, and form an integral portion of the Revision.  Though we\nare now more particularly considering the renderings, I include here the\nmarginal readings, as the relation of the margins to the Version could\nhardly be fully specified without taking into consideration the margin in\nits entirety.  As readers of the Preface to the New Testament (very few,\nI fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly remember,\nalternative readings and renderings were prohibited in the case of the\nAuthorised Version, but, as we know, the prohibition was completely\ndisregarded, some thirty-five notes referring to readings, and probably\nmore than five hundred to alternative renderings.  In the fundamental\nrules of Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course was\nprescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on.\n\nThese alternative readings and renderings must be carefully considered,\nas in the case of renderings much light is often thrown on the true\ninterpretation of the passage, especially in the more difficult portions\nof the New Testament.  Their relation however to the actually accepted\nVersion must not be exaggerated, either in reference to readings or\nrenderings.  I will make plain what I mean by an example.  Dr. Westcott\nspecifies a reading of importance in John i. 18 where he states that the\nreading in the margin (\"God only begotten\") did in point of fact express\nthe opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in the\ntext of the Version because it failed to secure the two-thirds majority\nof those present at the final revision.  This, perhaps, makes a little\ntoo much of an acceptance at a somewhat early period of the labours of\nthe Company.  So far as I remember the case, the somewhat startling\nalteration was accepted at the first revision (when the decision was to\nbe by simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of course\ncontinued up to the second revision.  At that revision the then text and\nthe then margin changed places.  Dr. Hort, I am well aware, published an\nimportant pamphlet on the subject, but I have no remembrance that the\nfirst decision on the reading was alluded to, either at the second\nrevision or afterwards, in any exceptional manner.  It did but share the\nfate of numberless alterations at the first revision that were not\nfinally confirmed.\n\nThe American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the reading in\nquestion with their English brethren; and the same too is the judgement\nof Professor Nestle in his carefully edited Greek Testament to which I\nhave already referred.\n\nI have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am especially\ndesirous to encourage a far greater attention to the margin than it has\nhitherto received, I am equally desirous that the margin should not be\nelevated above its real position.  That position is one of subordination\nto the version actually adopted, whether when maintaining the older form\nor changing it.  It expresses the judgement of a legal, if not also of a\nnumerical, minority, and, in the case of difficult passages (as in Rom.\nix. 4), the judgement of groups which the Company, as a whole, deemed\nworthy of being recorded.  But, not only should the margin thus be\nconsidered, but the readings and renderings preferred by the American\nCommittee, which will often be found suggestive and helpful.  These, as\nwe know, are now incorporated in the American Standard Edition of the\nRevised Bible; and the result, I fear, will be that the hitherto familiar\nAppendix will disappear from the smaller English editions of the Revised\nVersion of the Old and New Testament.  It is perhaps inevitable, but it\nwill be a real loss.  All I can hope is that in some specified English\neditions of the Old and New Testament each Appendix will regularly be\nmaintained, and that this token of the happy union of England and America\nin the blessed work of revising their common version of God's holy Word\nwill thus be preserved to the end.\n\nBut we must now pass onward to considerations very closely affecting the\nrenderings of the Revised Version of the Greek Testament.\n\nI have already said that very recently a new and unexpected charge has\nbeen brought against the Revisers of the Authorised Version.  And the\ncharge is no less than this, that the Revisers were ignorant in several\nimportant particulars of the language from which the version was\noriginally made that they were appointed to revise.\n\nNow in meeting a charge of this nature, in which we may certainly notice\nthat want of considerate intelligence which marks much of the criticism\nthat has been directed against our revision, it seems always best when\ndealing with a competent scholar who does not give in detail examples on\nwhich the criticism rests, to try and understand his point of view and\nthe general reasons for his unfavourable pronouncement.  And in this case\nI do not think it difficult to perceive that the imputation of ignorance\non the part of the Revisers has arisen from an exaggerated estimate of\nthe additions to our knowledge of New Testament Greek which have\naccumulated during the twenty years that have passed away since the\nRevision was completed.  If this be a correct, as it is certainly a\ncharitable, estimate of the circumstances under which ignorance has been\nimputed to us in respect of several matters relating to the Greek on\nwhich we were engaged, let us now leave our critics, and deal with these\nreasonable questions.  First, what was the general knowledge, on the part\nof the Revisers, of the character and peculiarities of New Testament\nGreek?  Secondly, what is the amount of the knowledge relative to New\nTestament Greek that has been acquired since the publication of the\nrevision? and thirdly, to what extent does this recently acquired\nknowledge affect the correctness and fidelity of the renderings that have\nbeen adopted by the Revisers?  If these three questions are plainly\nanswered we shall have dealt fully and fairly with the doubts that have\nbeen expressed or implied as to the correctness of the revision.\n\nFirst, then, as to the general knowledge which the revisers had of the\ncharacter and peculiarities of the Greek of the New Testament.\n\nThis question could not perhaps be more fairly and correctly dealt with\nthan by Bishop Westcott in the opening words of his chapter on Exactness\nin Grammatical Detail, in the valuable work to which I have already\nreferred.  What he states probably expresses very exactly the general\nview taken by the great majority, if not by all, of the Revisers in\nregard of the Greek of the New Testament.  What the Bishop says of the\nlanguage is this: \"that it is marked by unique characteristics.  It is\nseparated very clearly, both in general vocabulary and in construction,\nfrom the language of the LXX, the Greek Version of the Old Testament,\nwhich was its preparation, and from the Greek of the Fathers which was\nits development {106}.\"\n\nIf we accept this as a correct statement of the general knowledge of the\nRevisers as to the language of the Greek Testament, we naturally ask\nfurther, on what did they rely for the correct interpretation of it.  The\nanswer can readily be given, and it is this: Besides their general\nknowledge of Greek which, in the case of the large majority, was very\ngreat, their knowledge of New Testament Greek was distinctly influenced\nby the grammatical views of Professor Winer, of whose valuable grammar of\nthe Greek Testament one of our Company, as I have mentioned in my first\nAddress, had been a well-known and successful translator.  Though his\nname was not very frequently brought up in our discussions, the influence\nhis grammar exerted among us, directly and indirectly, was certainly\ngreat; but it went no further than grammatical details.  His obvious\ngravitation to the idea of New Testament Greek forming a sort of separate\ndepartment of its own probably never was shared, to any perceptible\nextent, by any one of us.  We did not enter very far into these matters.\nWe knew by every day's working experience that New Testament Greek\ndiffered to some extent from the Greek to which we had been accustomed,\nand from the Septuagint Greek to which from time to time we referred.\nBut further than this we did not go, nor care to go.  We had quite enough\non our hands.  We had a very difficult task to perform, we had to revise\nunder prescribed conditions a version which needed revision almost in\nevery verse, and we had no time to enter into questions that did not then\nappear to bear directly on our engrossing and responsible work.\n\nBut now it must be distinctly admitted that recent investigation and, to\na certain extent, recent discoveries have cast so much new light on New\nTestament Greek that it becomes a positive duty to take into\nconsideration what has been disclosed to us by the labours of the last\nfifteen years as to New Testament Greek, and then fairly to face the\nquestion whether the particular labours of the Revisers have been\nseriously affected by it.  Let us bear in mind, however, that it may be\nquite possible that a largely increased knowledge of the position which\nwhat used to be called Biblical Greek now occupies may be clearly\nrecognized, and yet only comparatively few changes necessitated by it in\nsyntactic details and renderings.  But let us not anticipate.  What we\nhave now to do is to ascertain the nature and amount of the disclosures\nand new knowledge to which I have alluded.\n\nThis may be briefly stated as emanating from a very large amount of\nrecent literature on post-classical Greek, and from a careful and\nscientific investigation of the transition from the earlier\npost-classical to the later, and thence to the modern Greek of the\npresent time.  Such an investigation, illustrated as it has been by the\nvoluminous collection of the Inscriptions, and the already large and\ngrowing collection of the Papyri, has thrown indirectly considerable\nlight on New Testament Greek, and has also called out three works, each\nof a very important character, and posterior to the completion of the\nRevision, which deal directly with the Greek of the New Testament.  These\nthree works I will now specify.\n\nThe first, which is still in progress, and has not, I think, yet received\na translator, is the singularly accurate, and in parts corrective,\nedition of Winer's \"Grammar\" by Prof. Schmiedel.  The portion on the\narticle is generally recognized as of great value and importance.\n\nThe second work is the now well-translated \"Bible Studies\" of Dr.\nDeissmann of Heidelberg {109}.  This remarkable work, of which the full\ntitle is \"Contributions, chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions, to the\nHistory of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic\nJudaism, and Primitive Christianity,\" contains not only a clear estimate\nof the nature of New Testament Greek, but also a large and instructive\nvocabulary of about 160 words and expressions in the New Testament, most\nof which receive in varying degrees illustration from the Papyri, and\nother approximately contemporary sources.  It must be noted, however,\nthat the writer himself specifies that his investigations \"have been, in\npart, arranged on a plan which is polemical {110a}.\"  This avowal must,\nto some extent, affect our full acceptance of all the results arrived at\nin this striking and laborious work.\n\nThe third work is a \"Grammar of New Testament Greek\" by the well-known\nand distinguished scholar, Dr. Blass, and is deserving of the fullest\nattention from every earnest student of the Greek Testament.  It has been\nexcellently translated by Mr. St. John Thackeray, of the Education\nDepartment {110b}.  It is really hardly possible to speak too highly of\nthis helpful and valuable work.  Its value consists in this--that it has\nbeen written, on the one hand, by an accomplished classical scholar, and,\non the other hand, by one who is thoroughly acquainted with the\ninvestigations of the last fifteen years.  As his Introduction clearly\nshows, he fully accepts the estimate that is now generally entertained of\nthe Greek of the New Testament, viz. that it is no isolated production,\nas regards language, that had no historic relation to the Greek of the\npast or of the future.  It was not, to any great extent, derived from the\nGreek _translations_ of the Old Testament--often, as Dr. Blass says,\nslavishly literal--nor from the literary language of the time, but was\nthe spoken Greek of the age to which it belonged, modified by the\nposition and education of the speaker, and also to some extent, though by\nno means to any large extent, by the Semitic element which, from time to\ntime, discloses itself in the language of the inspired writers.  This\nlast-written epithet, which I wittingly introduce, must not be lost sight\nof by the Christian student.\n\nDr. Blass quite admits that the language of the Greek Testament may be\nrightly treated in connexion with the discoveries in Egypt furnished by\nthe Papyri; but he has also properly maintained elsewhere {111} that the\nbooks of the New Testament form a special group _to be primarily\nexplained by itself_.  Greatly as we are indebted to Dr. Deissmann for\nhis illustrations, especially in regard of vocabulary, we must read with\nserious caution, and watch all attempts to make Inscriptions or Papyri do\nthe work of an interpretation of the inner meaning of God's Holy Word\nwhich belongs to another realm, and to the self-explanations which are\nvouchsafed to us in the reverent study of the Book--not of Humanity (as\nDeissmann speaks of the New Testament) {112} but of--Life.\n\nI have now probably dealt sufficiently with the second of the three\nquestions which I have put forward for our consideration.  I have stated\nthe general substance of the knowledge which has been permitted to come\nto us since the revision was completed.  I now pass onward to the third\nand most difficult question equitably to answer, \"To what extent does\nthis newly-acquired knowledge affect the correctness and fidelity of the\nrevision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament?\"  It is easy\nenough to speak of \"ignorance\" on the part of the Revisers, especially\nafter what I have specified in the answer to the question on which we\nhave just been meditating; but the real and practical question is this,\n\"If the Revisers had all this knowledge when they were engaged on their\nwork, would it have materially affected their revision?\"\n\nTo this more limited form of the question I feel no difficulty in\nreplying, that I am fully and firmly persuaded that it would _not_ have\nmaterially affected the revision; and my grounds for returning this\nanswer depend on these two considerations: first, that the full knowledge\nwhich some of us had of Winer's Grammar, and the general knowledge that\nwas possessed of it by the majority, certainly enabled us to realize that\nthe Greek on which we were engaged, while retaining very many elements of\nwhat was classical, had in it also not only many signs of post-classical\nGreek, but even of usages which we now know belong to later developments.\nThese later developments, all of which are, to some extent, to be\nrecognized in the Greek Testament, such as the disappearance of the\noptative, the use of [Greek text] with the subjunctive in the place of\nthe infinitive, the displacement of [Greek text], the interchange of\n[Greek text] and [Greek text], of [Greek text] and [Greek text], the use\nof compound forms without any corresponding increase of meaning, the\nextended usage of the aorist, the wider sphere of the accusative, and\nmany similar indications of later Greek--all these were so far known to\nus as to exercise a cautionary influence on our revision, and to prevent\nus overpressing the meaning of words and forms that had lost their\noriginal definiteness.\n\nMy second reason for the answer I have given to the question is based on\nthe accumulating experience we were acquiring in our ten years of labour,\nand our instinctive avoidance of renderings which in appearance might be\nprecise, but did in reality exaggerate the plain meaning intended by the\nGreek that we were rendering.  Sometimes, but only rarely, we fell into\nthis excusable form of over-rendering.  Perhaps the concluding words of\nMark xiv. 65 will supply an example.  At any rate, the view taken by\nBlass {114} would seem to suggest a less literal form of translation.\n\nWhen I leave the limited form of answer, and face the broad and general\nquestion of the extent to which our recently-acquired knowledge affects\nthe correctness and fidelity of the revision, I can only give an answer\nfounded on an examination of numerous passages in which I have compared\nthe comments of Dr. Blass in his Grammar, and of Dr. Deissmann in his\n\"Bible Studies with the renderings of the Revisers.\"  And the answer is\nthis, that the number of cases in which any change could reasonably be\nrequired has been so small, so very small, that the charge of any real\nignorance, on the part of the Revisers, of the Greek on which they were\nengaged, must be dismissed as utterly and entirely exaggerated.  We have\nnow acquired an increased knowledge of the character of the Greek of the\nNew Testament, and of the place it holds in the historical transition of\nthe language from the earlier post-classical to the later developments of\nthe language, but this knowledge, interesting and instructive as it may\nbe, leaves the principles of correctly translating it practically intact.\nIn this latter process we must deal with the language of the Greek\nTestament as we would deal with the language of any other Greek book, and\nmake the book, as far as we have the means of doing so, its own\ninterpreter.\n\nHaving thus shown in broad and general terms, as far as I have been able\nto do so, that we may still, notwithstanding the twenty years that have\npassed away, regard the Revised Version of the Greek Testament as a\nfaithfully executed revision, and its renderings such as may be accepted\nwith full Christian confidence, I now turn to the easier, but not less\nnecessary, duty of bringing before you some considerations why this\nVersion and, with it, the Revised Version of the Old Testament, should be\nregularly used in the public services of our Mother Church.\n\n\n\n\nADDRESS V.\nPUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION.\n\n\nWe have now traced the external, and to some extent the internal history\nof Revision from the time, some fifty years ago, when it began to occupy\nthe thoughts of scholars and divines, down to the present day.\n\nWe have seen the steady advance in Church opinion as to its necessity;\nits earliest manifestations, and the silent progress from what was\ntentative and provisional to authoritative recognition, and to carefully\nformulated procedures under the high and venerable sanction of the two\nHouses of the Convocation of Canterbury.  We have further seen how the\nmovement extended to America, and how some of the best scholars and\ndivines of that Christian country co-operated with those of our own\ncountry in the arduous and responsible work of revising their common\nheritage, the Version of God's most Holy Word, as set forth by authority\n290 years ago.  We have noted too, that in this work not less than one\nhundred scholars and divines were engaged--for fourteen years in the case\nof the Old Testament, and for ten years in the case of the New\nTestament--and that this long period of labour and study was marked by\nregularly appointed and faithfully kept times of meeting, and by the\ninterchange with the Revisers on the other side of the Atlantic of\nsuccessive portions of the work, until the whole was completed.\n\nAnd this Revision, as we have seen, has included a full consideration of\nthe text of the original languages as well as of the renderings.  In the\nOld Testament, adherence to the Massorite Text has left only a very\nlimited number of passages in which consideration of the ancient Version\nwas deemed to be necessary; but, in the New Testament, as we well know,\nquestions of textual criticism occupied a large portion of the time and\nattention of the Revisers, both here and in America.  In regard of the\nrenderings, we have seen the care and thoroughness with which the\nRevision was carried out, the marginal notes in both Testaments showing\nconvincingly, especially on the more difficult passages, how every\nrendering that could be regarded as in any degree probable received its\nfull share of consideration.  Finally, it must not be forgotten that, in\nthe case of the New Testament, the serious question whether the research\nin New Testament Greek since the Revision was completed has, to any\nappreciable extent, affected the suggestive light and truth of really\ninnumerable corrections and changes--this too has been faced, and the\ncharge fairly met, that just conclusions drawn from the true nature of\nthe Greek, gravely affecting interpretation, have been ignored by the\nRevisers.\n\nSo much of the latter part of the last Address has been taken up with\nthis necessary duty of showing that the changes in renderings cannot be\ninvalidated by _a priori_ considerations founded on the alleged\ninsufficient knowledge, on the part of the Revisers, of the nature of the\nGreek they were translating, that I have not cited examples of the\nlight-giving and often serious nature of the changes made in the\nAuthorised Version.  This I regretted at the time; but a little\nconsideration showed me that it was much better for the cause in which I\nam engaged that I should refer you for illustrations of the nature and\nvalue of the renderings in the Revised Version of the New Testament to a\nsingularly fruitful and helpful volume, published only four years ago,\nand so subsequently to the researches in New Testament Greek of which I\nhave spoken.  This volume was written by a member of our Company--now,\nalas, no longer with us--whose knowledge of the Greek language, whether\nof earlier or of later date, no one could possibly doubt.  I allude to\nthe \"Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament,\" by Dr.\nWestcott, a volume that has not yet received the full attention which its\nremarkable merits abundantly claim, for it.\n\nOf this volume I shall speak more fully later on in this Address, my\nobject now being to set forth the desirableness, I might even say the\nduty, of using the Revised Version in the Public Services of the Church.\n\nAfter the summary I have just given of the external history of this great\nmovement, does not the question come home to us, Why has all this been\ndone?  For what have the hundred labourers in the great work freely given\ntheir time and their energies during the four and twenty years (speaking\ncollectively) that were spent on the work?  For what did the venerable\nConvocation of our Province give the weight of its sanction and authority\nwhen it drew up the fundamental rules in accordance with which all has\nbeen done?  Can there be any other answer than this?  All has been done\nto bring the truth of God's most Holy Word more faithfully and more\nfreshly home to the hearts and consciences of our English-speaking\npeople.  And if this be so, how are ministers of this Holy Word to answer\nthe further question, When we are met together in the House of God to\nhear His word and His message of salvation to mankind, how hear we it?\nIn the traditional form in which it has been heard for wellnigh three\nhundred years, or in a form on which, to ensure faithfulness and\naccuracy, such labour has been bestowed as that which we are now\nconsidering?  It seems impossible to hesitate as to our answer.  And yet\nnumbers do hesitate; and partly from indifference, partly from a vague\nfear of disquieting a congregation, partly, and probably chiefly, from a\nsense of difficulty as to the rightful mode of introducing the change,\nthe old Version is still read, albeit with an uneasy feeling on the part\nof the public reader; the uneasy feeling being this, that errors in\nregard of Holy Scripture ought not to remain uncorrected nor obscurities\nleft to cloud the meaning of God's Word when there is a current Version\nfrom which errors are removed, and in which obscurities are dissipated.\nWhy should not such a Version be read in the ears of our people?\n\nThis is the question which I am confident many a one of you, my dear\nfriends, when you have been reading in your church--say the\nEpistles--have often felt very distinctly come home to you.  Why should\nsuch a Version not be read in the ears of our people?  Has it been\nforbidden?  No, thank God; full liberty, on the contrary, has been left\nto us by the living voice of the synod of this Province that it may be\nread, subject to one reasonable limitation.  Was it not the unanimous\njudgement of the Upper House of the Convocation of our Province,\nconfirmed by the voice of the Lower House {122}--\"That the use of the\nRevised Version of the Bible at the lectern in the public services of the\nChurch, where this is desired by clergy and people, is not open to any\nwell-founded objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent\nknowledge of Holy Scripture\"?  And further, was not this adopted by the\nLay House of our Province, even when a few doubting voices were heard\n{123}, and an interpretation given to the word \"use,\" in the form of a\nrider, which, I can confidently say, never entered into the minds or\nthoughts of the members of the Upper House?  Indeed, though I do not wish\nto criticise the decision of the House of Laymen, their appended words of\ninterpretation fall to the ground.  If \"use\" is to mean \"occasional\nemployment of Lessons from the Revised Version, where, in the interest of\nmore accurate translation, it is desirable,\" can any Lessons be found\nwhere the interest of more accurate translation is not patently\nconcerned?  If this be so, what meaning can we assign to \"occasional\nemployment\"?\n\nWe see then plainly, if we are to be guided by the judgement of the\nvenerable body to whom the authoritative inception of Revision is alone\nto be assigned, that the way to its use in the Public Services of the\nChurch is open to us all--_where such use is desired by clergy and\npeople_.  Now let us take these words seriously into our consideration.\nThey clearly mean, however good the Version may be, that there is to be\nno sudden and precipitate use of the Revised Version in the appointed\nLessons for the day on the part of the minister of any of our parishes.\nIf introduced, its introduction must not be simply when it is desired by\nthe clergyman, but when it is also desired by his people.  So great a\nchange as the displacement of the old and familiar Authorised\nVersion--for it amounts to this--in the public reading of Holy Scripture\nin the Services of the Church, in favour of an altered form of the old\nVersion (though confessedly so altered that the general hearer would\nhardly ever recognize the displacement)--so great a change ought not to\nbe made without the knowledge, and further, the desire of the\ncongregation.\n\nBut how is the desire for the change to be ascertained?  So far as I can\nsee, there can be only one real and rightful way of bringing about the\ndesire and the manifestation of it, and that is by first of all showing\nsimply and plainly how, especially in the New Testament, the alterations\ngive life, colouring and reality to the narratives of Evangelists, force\nand lucidity to the reasonings of Apostles, and, what is of still more\nvital importance, deeper insight into our relations to our saving Lord,\nclearer knowledge of His blessed life and work here on earth, and\nquickened perceptions of our present and our future, and, to a very real\nextent, of the holy mysteries of the life of the world to come.  When\nchanges of text and of renderings are shown, and they can be shown, to\nbear with them these fuller revelations of God's Holy Word, there will be\nno lack of desire, and of the manifestation of it, in any congregation,\nfor the public use of a Version through which such disclosures as I have\nspecified can be brought home to the truth-seeking believer.\n\nMy fixed opinion therefore is this, that though, after a long and careful\nconsideration of the subject, I do sincerely desire that the Revised\nVersion should be introduced into the churches of this diocese, I do also\nsincerely desire that it should not be introduced without a due\npreparation of the congregation for the change, and some manifestation of\ntheir desire for the change.  There will probably be a few churches in\nour diocese in which the Revised Version is used already, and in regard\nof them nothing more will be necessary than, from time to time, in\noccasional addresses, to allude to any important changes that may have\nappeared in the Lessons and recent readings of Holy Scripture, and thus\nto keep alive the thoughtful study of that which will be more and more\nfelt to be, in the truest sense of the words, the Book of Life.  But, in\nthe great majority of our churches--though in many cases there may have\nbeen passing desires to read and to hear God's Word in its most truthful\nform--no forward steps will have been taken.  It is in reference then to\nthis great majority of cases that I have broken my long silence, and,\nbefore my ministry closes, have resolved to bring before you the whole\nhistory of the greatest spiritual movement that has taken place since the\nReformation; and also to indicate the untold blessings the Revision will\nbear to those who avail themselves of it in all reverent earnestness and\ndevotion.\n\nThus far I hope I have made it plain that any forward steps that may be\ntaken can only hopefully be taken when, both in the case of pastor and\npeople, due preparation shall have been made for what, in the sequel,\nwill be found to be an enduring spiritual change in the relation of the\nsoul of the devout hearer or reader to the Book of Life.  He will learn\nnot only faithfully to read the inspired Word, but inwardly to love it.\n\nBut what shall we regard as due preparation in the case of pastor and\npeople?  This question, I can well believe, has already risen in the\nhearts of many who are now hearing these words, and to the best answer to\nit that I am able to give you I will gladly devote the remainder of this\npresent Address.  Let us first consider how any one of you really and\ntruly desirous to prepare his congregation for the hearing of God's Word\nin the form known as the Revised Version--how such a one should prepare\nhimself for the responsible duty.  Prayer for himself and his\ncongregation in this great spiritual matter should ever be his first\npreparation.  After this his next care should be to provide himself with\nsuch books as will be indispensable for faithful preparation.  First and\nforemost, let him provide himself with a copy of what is called the\nParallel Bible, the Authorised Version being on the left-hand side of the\npage, and the Revised Version on the right.  Next let it be his duty to\nread closely and carefully the Preface to the Old Testament and the\nPreface to the New Testament.  Had this been done years ago, how much of\nunfair criticism should we all have been spared?  The next step will be\nto obtain some competent guide-book to explain the meaning of the\ndifferent changes of rendering, the alterations due to readings having\nbeen separately noted.  The guide-book, whether in the case of the Old or\nof the New Testament, should, in my judgement, be a volume written by a\nReviser, as he would have a knowledge, far beyond what could be obtained\nby an outsider, of the reasons for many of the departures from the\nAuthorised Version.\n\nIn regard of the Old Testament I have said in my last Address that I do\nnot myself know of any guide-book, written by a Reviser, save the\ninteresting volume by Dr. Talbot Chambers, to which I have been indebted\nfor much that, being a member of another Company, I could not have\nbrought forward without his assistance.  In regard of the New Testament,\nhowever, it is otherwise.  There is a useful volume by my old friend and\nformer colleague the late Prebendary Humphry; but the volume which I most\nearnestly desire to name is the volume already mentioned, and entitled\n\"Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament,\" by the late\nBishop of Durham.  This book is simply indispensable for any one desirous\nof preparing himself for the duty of introducing the Revised Version of\nthe New Testament into the Public Services of his parish.  It is one of\nthose rare and remarkable books that not only give the needed\nexplanation, but also cast a light on the whole spiritual results of the\nchange, and constantly awaken in the reader some portion of the\nenthusiasm with which the Bishop records changes that many an earnest and\ndevout reader might think belonged only to the details of grammatical\naccuracy.  I thus cannot forbear quoting a few lines in which the Bishop,\nafter alluding to the change in Matt. xxviii. 19, _into_ (not _in_) _the\nname of the Father and of the Holy Ghost_, and the change in Rom. vi. 23,\n_eternal life in_ (not _through_) _Christ Jesus our Lord_, thus speaks\nfrom his inmost soul: \"Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered the\nmeaning of those two prepositions now truly rendered--'_into_ the name,'\n'_in_ Christ'--has found the central truth of Christianity?  Certainly I\nwould gladly have given the ten years of my life spent on the Revision to\nbring only these two phrases of the New Testament to the heart of\nEnglishmen.\"  Is it too much to say that a volume written by a guide such\nas this is simply indispensable for any one who prepares himself for\nintroducing to his people--the government of whose souls has been\ncommitted to him--the Revised Version of the New Testament of our Lord\nand Master Jesus Christ.\n\nWith the help that I have specified any one of you, my dear friends,\nmight adequately prepare himself for the duty and responsibility of\ntaking the next step, the preparation of his congregation for hearing the\nWord of God in the form that most nearly approaches in our own language\nwhat prophets, evangelists, and apostles have written for our learning\nunder the inspiration of God.  This preparation may be carried on in many\nforms, by pastoral visitations, through our Bible classes, through the\nefforts of our mission preachers in the holy seasons, but obviously most\nhopefully and persuasively by the living voice of the faithful pastor in\nhis public ministrations in the pulpit of his church.  Parishes differ so\nmuch in spiritual culture that probably no method of preparation could be\nspecified that would be equally applicable to all.  Still in the case of\nour country parishes I am persuaded our preparation must come from the\npulpit and in a manner carefully thought out and prearranged.  Let me\ngive some indication of a mode of bringing the subject forward in a\ncountry parish that would call out the desire for the regular use of the\nRevised Version in the reading of the Lessons for the day.\n\nLet us suppose a month set apart for the preparation.  On the first\nSunday let an account be given of the circumstances, and especially the\nauthority under which the Revision came into existence.  On the second\nSunday let illustrations be given of the nature of the Revision from\nthose parts in Bishop Westcott's \"Lessons of the Revised Version of the\nNew Testament\" which made the deepest impression during the study of that\nsuggestive and spiritual volume.  On the third Sunday let comments be\nmade on the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons for\nthe day from the Old Testament.  Here the preacher may find some\ndifficulty, as want of knowledge of Hebrew or of the right interpretation\nof the passage in which the alteration is made might prevent his clearly\nstating the reasons for it.  In such cases a good modern Commentary on\nthe Old Testament would probably supply the needed assistance.  The most\navailable Commentary I know of for the purpose is the one published by\nMessrs. Cassells, and now sold at the low price--for both Testaments--of\nthirty-five shillings.  On the fourth Sunday, the preacher's subject\nshould be the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons\nfrom the New Testament.  For this there would be abundant help supplied\nby the volume of Bishop Westcott, and, if needed, by the Commentary on\nthe New Testament to which I have alluded.\n\nNow I sincerely believe that if this very simple and feasible plan were\ncarried out in any parish, two results would certainly follow: first,\nthat the Revised Version would be desired and welcomed; secondly, that an\ninterest in God's Holy Word would be called out in the parish and its\nBible classes that would make a lasting impression on the whole spiritual\nlife of the place.  We have many faults, but we are a Bible-loving\nnation, and we have shown it in many crises of our history; and thus, I\nam persuaded, in a change such as I have suggested, the old love would be\ncalled out afresh, and would display itself in a manner we might never\nhave expected.\n\nI feel now that I have said all that it may be well for me to have laid\nbefore you.  I have used no tone of authority; I have not urged in any\nway the introduction of the Revised Version, or that the plan of\nintroducing it should be adopted by any one among you.  I have contented\nmyself with having shown that it is feasible; and I have definitely\nstated my opinion that, if it were to be adopted, it is in a high degree\nprobable that a fresh interest in the Holy Scriptures would be awakened,\nand the love of God's Holy Word again found to be a living reality.\n\nPerhaps the present time may be of greater moment in regard of the study\nof Holy Scripture, and especially of the language of the Greek Testament,\nthan we may now be able distinctly to foresee.  I mentioned in my last\nAddress the large amount of research, during the last fifteen years, in\nreference to the Greek of the New Testament and the position which the\nsacred volume, considered simply historically and as a collection of\nwritings in the Greek language of the first century after Christ, really\ndoes hold in the general history of a language which, in its latest form,\nis widely spoken to this very day.  I mentioned also what seemed to be\nthe most reasonable opinion, viz. that the Greek of the New Testament was\nthe spoken Greek of the time, neither literary Greek nor the Greek of the\nlower class, but Greek such as men would use at that time when they had\nto place in the definiteness of writing the language which passed from\ntheir lips in their converse with their fellow-men.  Now, that advantage\nwill be taken of this, and that it will be used to show that the\nspiritual deductions that we draw from the written words cannot be fully\nrelied on, because old distinctions have been obscured or obliterated, is\nwhat I fear, in days such as these, will often be used against the\nfaithful reading, marking, and learning of the Written Word.  But we\nshall hear them, I hope, with the two true conclusive answers ever\npresent in the soul, the answer of plain human reasoning, and the deeper\nanswer which revelation brings seriously home to us.  In regard of the\nfirst answer, does not plain common sense justify us in maintaining that\nthe writers meant what they _wrote_, and that when they used certain\nGreek words in the mighty message they were delivering to their\nfellow-men and to all who should hereafter receive it, they did mean that\nthose words were to be understood in the plain and simple meaning that\nevery plain reader would assign to them.  They were not speaking; they\nwere writing; and they were writing what they knew was to be for all\ntime.  Thus to take an example from the passages above referred to of\nwhich Bishop Westcott makes such impressive use, who can doubt, with any\nfair show of reason--however frequent may be the interchange of the\nparticular prepositions in the first century--that, in those passages,\nwhen St. Matthew wrote [Greek text] he did mean _into_; and that when St.\nPaul used [Greek text], he did mean _in_, in the simplest sense of the\nword?\n\nBut to the devout Christian we have a far deeper answer than the answer\nwe have just considered.\n\nIn the first place, does not the manifold wisdom of God reveal itself to\nour poor human thoughts in His choice of a widespread spoken language,\njust by its very diffusion readily lending itself to the reception of new\nwords and new thoughts as the medium by which the Gospel message was\ncommunicated to the children of men?  Just as the particular period of\nChrist's manifestation has ever been reverently regarded as a revelation\nof the manifold nature of the eternal wisdom, so may we not see the same\nin the choice of a language, at a particular period of its development,\nas the bearer of the message of salvation to mankind?  Surely this is a\nmanifestation of the Divine wisdom which must ever be seen and felt\nwhenever the outward character of the Greek of the New Testament is dwelt\nupon by the truth-seeking spirit of the reverent believer.\n\nAnd is there not a second thought, far too much lost sight of in our\ninvestigation of the written word of the New Testament--that just as the\nwriters had their human powers quickened and strengthened by the Holy\nGhost for the full setting forth of the Gospel message by their spoken\nwords, so in regard of their written words would the same blessed\nguidance be vouchsafed to them?  And if so, is it not right for us, not\nonly to draw from their words all that by the plain laws of language they\ncan be understood to convey to us, but also to do what has been done in\nthe Revised Version, and to find the nearest equivalent our language\nsupplies for the words in the original?\n\nThese thoughts might be carried much further, but enough has been said to\njustify the minute care that has been taken in the renderings of the\nwritten word of the New Testament by the Revisers, and further, the\nvalidity of the deductions that may be drawn from their use of one word\nrather than another, especially in the case of words that might seem to\nbe practically synonymous.  It may be quite true that, in the current\nGreek of the time, many of the distinctions that were valid in an earlier\nperiod of the language were no longer observed; and of this we find many\nindications in the Greek Testament.  But it must be remembered that we\nalso find in the Greek Testament a vastly preponderating portion of what\nis grammatically correct according to the earlier standard, and often\nclear indications that what was so written must have been definitely\nmeant by the writer.  Is it not then our clearest duty, remembering\nalways that what we are translating is the Gospel message, to do what the\nRevisers did, to render each passage in accordance with the recognized\nmeaning of the words, and in harmony with the plain tenor of the context?\n\nI now close these words and these Addresses with the solemn prayer to\nAlmighty God that in this great matter, and in the use of that which the\nliving voice of our synod permits us to use, we may be guided by God the\nHoly Ghost, through Jesus Christ, our ever-blessed and redeeming Lord and\nGod.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n[As the use at the lectern of the Revised Version in the Public Service\nof the Church may be thought likely to involve expense, I may mention\nthat the small pica edition of the Bible, at 10_s._ 6_d._ net, and of the\nApocrypha separately, at 7_s._ 6_d._, will be found sufficient in most\nchurches.  The folio edition in buckram of the Bible with Apocrypha will,\nI understand, be two guineas, net.  Application however should be made to\nthe University Press of Oxford or of Cambridge, or to the Christian\nKnowledge Society.]\n\n                           OXFORD: HORACE HART\n                        PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\n\nWorks by the same Author.\n\n\nARE WE TO MODIFY FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE?  Small post 8vo, cloth boards,\n1_s._\n\nCHRISTUS COMPROBATOR; or, The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament.\nSmall post 8vo, cloth boards, 2_s._\n\nFOUNDATIONS OF SACRED STUDY.  Part I.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards,\n2_s._; Part II, 2_s._ 6_d._\n\nMODERN UNBELIEF: its Principles and Characteristics.  Small post 8vo,\ncloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._\n\nOUR REFORMED CHURCH AND ITS PRESENT TROUBLES.  Small post 8vo, cloth\nboards, 6_d._\n\nSALUTARY DOCTRINE.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._\n\nSPIRITUAL NEEDS IN COUNTRY PARISHES.  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._\n\nTHE BEING OF GOD (Six Addresses on).  Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._\n6_d._\n\n                SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.\n                   LONDON: NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n\n{6}  The following Resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House\nof the Convocation of Canterbury on Feb. 10, 1899, after the presentation\nof the Report of the Committee (well worthy of being read) by the Bishop\nof Rochester.  The Report is numbered 329, and, with other Reports of\nConvocation, is sold by the National Society:--\n\n    \"That in the opinion of this House the use of the Revised Version at\n    the lectern in the public service of the Church, where this is\n    desired by clergy and people, is not open to any well-founded\n    objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of\n    Holy Scripture.\"\n\n{10a}  Among others may be named the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1855 on\nParagraph Bibles, in which it was said that it was now high time for\nanother revision (p. 429); the _Christian Remembrancer_ for 1856 on the\nRevision of the Authorised Version (an interesting article); the\n_Quarterly Review_ for 1863, intimating that as yet we were not ripe for\nany authorised text or translation; the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1865; and\nthe _Contemporary Review_ for 1868, a careful and elaborate article,\ncontending that the work must be done by a Commission.\n\n{10b}  In February, 1856, when Canon Selwyn gave notice of proposing a\npetition on the subject to the Upper House.  The proposal in a somewhat\ndifferent form a year afterwards was disposed of by a characteristic\namendment of Archdeacon Denison.\n\n{10c}  On July 22, 1856, Mr. Heywood, one of the members, I think, for\nNorth Lancashire, in rather an interesting speech, moved for an Address\nto the Crown to issue a Royal Commission on the subject.  The motion was\nrejected, Sir George Grey expressing his conviction that the feeling of\nthe country was not in accordance with the motion.\n\n{12}  Preface to the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel\naccording to St. John by Five Clergymen, p. xii.  As I remark afterwards,\nthis preface proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatly\nhelped the cause.  The book has long since gone out of print, but if any\nreader of this note should come across it, this preface will be found\nwell worth reading, as it will show what was in the minds of many beside\nthe Five Clergymen five and forty years ago.\n\n{13}  See Schaff, _Companion to Greek Testament and English version_, p.\n367, note (New York, 1883).\n\n{21}  The _Expositor_ for October, 1892, pp. 241-255.  The article was\nanswered by me in the same periodical two months later.\n\n{22}  The account of the discussion in the Convocation of York (Feb. 23,\n1870) will be found in _The Guardian_ of March 2, 1870.  In the comments\nof this paper on the action or rather inaction of the Northern\nConvocation a very unfavourable opinion was expressed, in reference to\nthe manner in which the Southern Convocation had been treated.  But these\nthings have long since been forgotten.\n\n{35}  It may be interesting to give this list, as it slightly affects\nmatter that will be alluded to afterwards in reference to the Greek text.\nThe attendances were as follows: The Chairman, 405; Dr. Scrivener, 399;\nPrebendary Humphry, 385; Principal Newth, 373; Prof. Hort, 362; Dean\nBickersteth (Prolocutor), 352; Dean Scott, 337; Prof. Westcott, 304; Dean\nVaughan, 302; Dean Blakesley, 297; Bishop Lightfoot, 290; Archdeacon Lee,\n283; Dr. Moulton, 275; Archdeacon Palmer, 255; Dean Stanley, 253; Dr.\nVance Smith, 245; Principal Brown, 209; Principal Angus, 199; Prof.\nMilligan, 182; Prof. Kennedy, 165; Dr. Eadie, 135; Bishop Moberly, 121;\nBishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), 109; Dr. Roberts, 94; Archbishop Trench,\n63; Dean Merivale (resigned early), 19; Dean Alford (died soon after\ncommencement), 16; Bishop Wilberforce, 1.\n\n{36}  This letter will be found in a very valuable _Historical Account of\nthe Work of the American Committee of Revision_ (New York, 1885), p. 30.\nThis _Historical Account_ was prepared by a special Committee appointed\nfor the purpose in May, 1884, and was based on documents and papers\narranged with great care by Dr. Philip Schaff, the President of the\nAmerican Committee, and printed privately.  These two volumes, the\n_Historical Account_ and the _Documentary History_, contain the fullest\ndetails of the whole transactions between the American Committee and the\nEnglish Companies and also the University Presses.\n\n{41}  Talbot W. Chambers, _Companion to the Revised Old Testament_ (Funk\nand Wagnalls, New York and London, 1885), Preface, p. ix.\n\n{42a}  A full account of the negotiation and copies of the letters which\npassed between the American Revisers and our own Revisers will be found\nin Part 2, p. 81 sqq. of the _Documentary History_, above referred to in\nthe note at p. 36.\n\n{42b}  A full account of this agreement and copies of the correspondence\nwith the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge will be found in Part 3, p.\n91 sqq. of the _Documentary History_.\n\n{44}  Since the above was written, information reaches me that an\n_American Standard Revision of the Bible_ either just has been, or\nshortly will be, published, which though not simply an incorporation of\nthe recorded American preferences, as long specified in our copies of the\nRevision, is a publication resting on authority, and likely to put a stop\nto what is unauthorised.  As the reader may like to know a little about\nthis _American Standard Revision of the Bible_, I will, at the risk of a\nlong note, mention what I have ascertained up to the present time.  The\nsurvivors of the Old Testament Company (Dr. Osgood and others) with the\nthree surviving members of the New Testament Company (Dr. Dwight, Dr.\nRiddle, and Dr. Thayer--very powerful helpers) have co-operated in\nbringing out a new edition of the Revision as it has been hitherto\ncurrent in America.  It will contain about _twice as many_ deviations\nfrom the English Revised Version as appear in the original Appendices;\nbut, in regard of them, the survivors give this important assurance, that\n\"the survivors have not felt at liberty to make new changes of moment\nwhich were not favourably passed upon (_sic_) by their associates, at one\nstage or another of the original preparation of the work.\"  They specify\nthat the original Appendix was prepared in haste and did not, in a\nsatisfactory manner, express the real views of the Committee.  They claim\nto have drawn up a body of improved marginal references, to have wholly\nremoved archaisms, to have supplied running headings, to have modified\nwhat they consider unwieldy paragraphs, to have lightened what they\nregard as clumsy punctuation, and by typographical arrangements, such as\nby leaving a line blank, to have indicated the main transitions of\nthought in the Epistles and Apocalypse.  These and other characteristics\nwill be found specified in the American _Sunday School Times_ for August\n11, 1901, in an article apparently derived from those interested.  Till\nwe see the book we must suspend our judgement.\n\n{50}  See an article by Rev. J. F. Thrupp in Smith's _Dictionary of the\nBible_, vol. ii. art. Old Testament.\n\n{53}  Since the above was written a critical edition of the four Peshitto\nGospels has been published by the Oxford University Press, based on the\nlabours of the late Philip Edward Pusey, and Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, of\nHertford College.\n\n{55}  The title of the pamphlet, which contains twelve letters from\ndistinguished German Professors, with translations, is _The Revision of\nthe Old Testament_ (New York, Scribner's Sons, 1886).\n\n{59}  The title of Dr. Salmon's interesting volume is _Some Thoughts on\nthe Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (Murray, London, 1897).\n\n{60a}  Salmon, p. 157.\n\n{60b}  Ibid., p. 12.\n\n{96}  See below, pp. 98, 120.\n\n{97}  See the Preface to Dr. Rutherford's _Translation of the Epistle to\nthe Romans_, p. xi sq. (Lond. 1900).\n\n{98a}  Hodder & Stoughton (Lond. 1897).\n\n{98b}  Page 18.\n\n{106}  See page 32.\n\n{109}  _Bible Studies_, by Dr. G. Adolf Deissmann, Authorised Translation\n(Clark, Edinburgh, 1901).\n\n{110a}  Page 175.\n\n{110b}  London, Macmillan, 1898.\n\n{111}  _Theologische Literaturzeitung_, xix (vol. for 1894), p. 338.\n\n{112}  _Bible Studies_, p. 84 Transl.  See, however, the translator's\nnote, p. 173, where the use of the term is explained.\n\n{114}  _Grammar of New Testament Greek_, section 38. 5, p. 118 (Transl.).\n\n{122}  See _Chronicle of Convocation_ for February 10, 1899, p. 71 sqq.\n\n{123}  At the May Meeting of the present year.","title":"Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":27511}