Addresses on the RevisedVersion of HolyScripture. 

 BY C. J. ELLICOTT, D. D. , BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER, AND HON. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 

 PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE. 

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

PREFATORY NOTE. 

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

 C. J. GLOUCESTER. 

_October_, 1901. 

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

ADDRESS I. EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION. 

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

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

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

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

The true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, moreparticularly, of the revision of the New Testament, must be regarded asthe grammar written by a young academic teacher, George Benedict Winer, as far back as 1822, bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language ofthe New Testament. It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, andindeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed incommentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies. It met with at first the fate of all assaults on prevailingunscientific procedures, but its value and its truth were soonrecognized. The volume passed through several successively improvededitions, until in 1855 the sixth edition was reached, and issued with anew and interesting preface by the then distinguished and veteran writer. This edition formed the basis of the admirable and admirably supplementedtranslation of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, whichwas published in 1870, passed through a second edition six yearsafterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard grammar, in an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this day. 

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

What came home to a large and increasing number of earnest andtruth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this--that there wereinaccuracies and errors in the current version of the Holy Scriptures, and especially of the New Testament, which plainly called forconsideration and correction, and further brought home to very many of usthat this could never be brought about except by an authoritativerevision. 

This general impression spread somewhat rapidly; and soon after themiddle of the last century it began to take definite shape. The subjectof the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament found aplace in the religious and other periodicals of the day {10a}, and as thetime went on was the subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded toeven in Convocation {10b} and Parliament {10c}. As yet however there hadbeen no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by itsnumerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally entertained as to theform that a revision might ultimately take. It was feared by many thatany authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance andinfluence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of HolyScripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions that wereprevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the cause of soundreligion in our Church and in our nation. 

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

It was just at this critical time that an honoured and influentialchurchman, who was then the popular and successful secretary of theSociety for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. Ernest Hawkins, afterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and persuaded a few of us, who had the happiness of being his friends, to combine and publish aversion of one of the books of the New Testament which might practicallydemonstrate to friends and to opponents what sort of a revision seemeddesirable under existing circumstances. After it had been completed wedescribed it "as a _tentamen_, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality, inviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the samekind, calling the attention of the Church to the many and anxiousquestions involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacularlanguage, and offering some help towards the settlement of thosequestions {12}. "

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

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

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

It showed plainly that there _were_ errors in the Authorised Version thatneeded correction. It further showed that their removal and theintroduction of improvements in regard of accuracy did not involve, either in quantity or quality, the changes that were generallyapprehended. And lastly, it showed in its results that _scholars_ ofdifferent habits of thought could combine in the execution of such a workwithout friction or difficulty. 

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

Such was the tentative version which prepared the way for authoritativerevision. 

More need not be said on this early effort. The version of the Gospel ofSt. John passed through three editions. The Epistles to the Romans andCorinthians appeared in 1858, and the first three of the remainingEpistles (Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) in 1861. The thirdedition of the Revision of the Authorised Version of St. John was issuedin 1863, with a preface in which the general estimate of the revision wasdiscussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative procedurein reference to the whole question. As our little band had now beenreduced to four, and its general aim and object had been realized, we didnot deem it necessary to proceed with a work which had certainly helpedto remove most of the serious objections to authoritative revision. Ourefforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were thenappearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, by theimportant work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, Trench, entitled "Onthe Authorised Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recentproposals for its revision. " This appeared in 1858. After the close ofour tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as they may betermed) of the movement did but little except, from time to time, conferwith one another on the now yearly improving prospects of authoritativerevision. In 1869 Dean Alford published a small handy revised version ofthe whole of the Greek Testament, and, a short time afterwards, Ipublished a small volume on the "Revision of the English Version, " inwhich I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and vigoroustranslation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised Version, and howlittle of this would ever be likely to disappear in any authoritativelyrevised version of the future. Some estimate also was made of the amountof changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the Gospels. Afew months later, a very valuable volume ("On a Fresh Revision of the NewTestament") was published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot, which appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of arevision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word was about to berealized. 

All now was ready for a definite and authoritative commencement. Ofthis, and of the later history of Revision, a brief account will be givenin the succeeding Address. 

ADDRESS II. LATER HISTORY OF REVISION. 

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

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

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

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

Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far asplainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thusundertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocationduring its long and eventful history, followed every course, adoptedevery expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the greatwork it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue. 

It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with theprimary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed ofeight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regularrule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, toconfer with the Convocation of York. The members of the Upper House wereas follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (HaroldBrowne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon afterwithdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to proceed. On the presentation of the Report it was stated that thecommittee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, asno committee had been appointed by them. It was commonly supposed thatthe Northern President (Abp. Of York) was favourable to revision, but thetwo Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very differentview {22}, as our President informed us that he had received acommunication from the Convocation of York to the effect that--"TheAuthorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by theEstablished Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of theEnglish-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; andthat although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time totime, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text. That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint acommittee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocationof Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified. "

This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the NorthernConvocation. We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were manyable and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we shouldhave heartily welcomed. Delay, however, was now out of the question. The working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of theConvocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposedrevision. 

The course of our proceedings was then as follows:

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

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

This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that asthis was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact anexecutive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinarycommittees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House, but simply an equal number. This request, though obviously a veryreasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded towithout some debate and even remonstrance. This, however, was overcomeand quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of theProlocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by theLower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans ofCanterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford(Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointedas members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee. 

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

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

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

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

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

Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble healthand preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the NewTestament, was unable to attend. It should be here mentioned that soonafter the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon ofWestminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Companyas their secretary. A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigablesecretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for thegreat and responsible work. 

On the same day (May 25, 1870, ) the rules for the carrying out of therevision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were allduly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear andopen for the commencement of the work. These rules (copies of which willbe found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hithertoissued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of thefundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have beenalready specified. 

The first of these subsidiary rules was as follows:--"To introduce as fewalterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Versionconsistently with faithfulness. " This rule must be read in connexionwith the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I havealready made on those rules. 

The second of the rules of the committee was as follows:--"To limit, asfar as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language ofthe Authorised and earlier English versions. " This rule was carefullyattended to in its reference to the Authorised Version. I do not howeverremember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that weoften fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions. Theywere always before us: but, in reference to other versions where therewere differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings ofthe ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, andoccasionally of the Gothic and Armenian. To these, however, the rulemakes no allusion. 

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

The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and isan amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule. Therule of the committee is as follows:--"That the text to be adopted bethat for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that whenthe text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Versionwas made, the alteration be indicated in the margin. " The subject of thetext is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows:--"To make orretain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Companyexcept _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on thefirst revision to decide by simple majorities. "

The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I donot know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was veryrarely acted upon:--"In every case of proposed alteration that may havegiven rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the nextmeeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of thosepresent at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the noticefor the next meeting. " The only occasion on which I can remember thisrule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one. Atthe close of a long day's work we found ourselves differing on therenderings of "tomb" or "sepulchre" in one of the narratives of theResurrection. This was easily and speedily settled the followingmorning. 

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

The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarelyacted upon: "To refer, on the part of each Company, when considereddesirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home orabroad, for their opinions. " How far this was acted on by the OldTestament Company I do not know. In regard of the New Testament Companythe only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule, was in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventhchapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In this particular case we sent oursheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of usknew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nauticallycorrect. I believe this friendly and competent authority did not findanything amiss. It has sometimes been said that it would have beenbetter, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule hadbeen more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English andalterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our moredistinguished literary men. It may be so; though I much doubt whether inmatters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominantarbiter. In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much couldhave been effected by appealing to the ears of others. At any rate wepreferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwardsmention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have beenimproved upon. 

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

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

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

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

 * * * * *

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

Our Old Testament Company was no less active and co-operative. As theytell us in the Preface prefixed to their revision, "the first revision ofthe several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the considerationof the American Revisers, and, except in the case of the Pentateuch(which had been twice gone through prior to co-operation) the EnglishCompany had the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions before theyproceeded to the second revision. The second revision was in like mannerforwarded to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Reviserswere in the hands of the English Company at their final review. " Bothour English Companies bear hearty testimony to the value derived from theco-operation. In the case of the New Testament Company, the "care, vigilance, and accuracy" which marked the work of their American brethrenis distinctly specified. 

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

The American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included representatives ofnine different denominations, viz. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and, to the extent of onemember, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Society of Friends. The EpiscopalChurch of America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the requestthat they would take part in the revision: this was declined. TheAmerican Church however, as we have already shown, was not whollyunrepresented in the work. The whole Committee was obviously much moremixed than the English Committee; but it must not be forgotten thatthough the English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, andEpiscopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly one-third ofthe two Companies were not members of the Church of England. If weassume that each Company consisted at any given time of twenty-fivemembers, which, as we have seen, would be approximately correct, thenon-Episcopal members will be found to have been not less than sixteen, viz. Seven Presbyterians, four Independents or Congregationalists, twoBaptists, two Wesleyans, and one Unitarian. Be this however as it may, it is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God theHoly Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the work both hereand in America. Here, as is well known, this was the case; and inAmerica, to quote one only out of many similar witnesses, one who washimself a reviser, and the only pastor in the Company (the Old TestamentCompany), thus gives his experience, "Never, even once, did the _odiumtheologicum_ appear. Nothing was said at any time that requiredretraction or apology {41}. "

This brief notice of our American brethren may close with one furthercomment. Their work began, like ours, with reliance on financial aidfrom the many who would be sure to be interested in such an important andlong-desired work. Help in our case was at once readily proffered, butvery soon was found not to be necessary, owing to our disposal ofcopyright to the Presses of the two Universities. With the AmericanRevisers it was otherwise. During the whole twelve years all thenecessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and otheraccessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed byliberal donors from among the friends of biblical revision. Thereremained, however, a grave difficulty. It was plainly impossible thatsuch distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companiescould simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent over tothem without being recognized as fellow revisers in the full sense of thewords. How, however, formally to establish this parity of position wasfound to be very difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, whohad trade rights which had properly to be guarded. The result was muchfriendly negotiation for several months, but without any definiteadjustment {42a}. At last, by the wise and conciliatory action of thePresses an agreement was arrived at in August, 1877 {42b}, by which we onthis side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the variousstages of our work to our American brethren and carefully to consider alltheir suggestions, but also to sanction the publication in every copy ofthe revision of a list of all the important passages, in regard of textand renderings, upon which the English and American Revisers could notfinally agree. The American Revisers on their part undertook not topublish any edition of their own for fourteen years. 

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

The appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it enabled theUniversities to acquire copyright for any of the editions _with thesereferences_ which they might publish, or cause to be published inAmerica. The University Press of Oxford has, I know, acted on thisright, but whether in conjunction with the Cambridge University Press orindependently I am not able to say. The right at any rate remains, andin the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may nowsuppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of altered editions ofthe revision, which from time to time might be brought forward byirresponsible publishers {44}. 

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

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

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

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

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

ADDRESS III. HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT. 

We now pass from what may be called the outward history of the Revisionto the inward nature and character of the work of the Revisers, and maynaturally divide that work into two portions--their labours as regardsthe original text, and their labours in regard of rendering andtranslation. 

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

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

That in this decision the Revisers had exercised the sound judgementwhich marks every part of their work cannot possibly be doubted by anycompetent reader. The Massoretic text has a long and interestinghistory. Its name is derived from a word, Massora (tradition), thatreminds us of the accumulated traditions and criticisms relating tonumerous passages of the text, and of the manner in which it was to beread, all which were finally committed to writing, and the ultimateresult of which is the text of which we have been speaking. That theformation of the written Massora was a work of time seems a probable andreasonable supposition. A very competent writer {50} tells us that thisformation may have extended from the sixth or seventh to the tenth oreleventh century. From the end of this Massoretic period onward the samewriter tells us that the Massora became the great authority by which thetext given in all the Jewish manuscripts was settled. All ourmanuscripts, in a word, are Massoretic. Any that were not so were notused, and allowed to perish, or, as it has been thought, were destroyedas not being in strict accordance with the recognized standards. Whetherwe have sustained any real critical loss by the disappearance of therejected manuscripts it is impossible to say. The fact only remains thatwe have no manuscript of any portion of the Old Testament certainly knownto be of a date prior to A. D. 916. The Massora, it may be mentioned, appears in two forms--the _Massora parva_ and the _Massora magna_. Theformer contains the really valuable portion of the great work, viz. , thevariation technically named K'ri (_read_), and placed in the margin ofthe Hebrew Bibles. This was to be substituted for the correspondingportion in the text technically named C'thib (_written_), and wasregarded by the Massoretes themselves as the true reading. The _Massoramagna_ contained the above, and other matter deemed to be of importancein reference to the interpretation of the text. 

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

These things, and others specified in the preface, should be carefullyattended to by the reader as enabling him to distinguish between thedifferent characters of the alternative renderings as specified in themargin. Those due to the Massoretes, or, in other words, the K'ris, willnaturally deserve attention from their antiquity. They are not, however, when estimated with reference to the whole of the sacred volume, verynumerous. In the earliest printed bible they were 1, 171 in number, butthis is generally considered erroneous in excess, 900 being probably muchnearer the true estimate. 

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

This recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient Versions bythe Revisers, though obviously in only a limited number of cases, seemsto indicate the great good that may be expected from a more complete andsystematic use of these ancient authorities in reference to the currenttext of the Old Testament. At present the texts implied in them have, Ibelieve, never yet been so closely analysed as to enable us to form anyjust estimate of their real critical value. They have been used byeditors, as in the case of Houbigant, but only in a limited and partialmanner. Lists, I believe, are accessible of all the more importantreadings suggested or implied by the Versions; but what is needed is farmore than this. In the first place we require much more trustworthytexts of the Versions themselves than are at present at our disposal. Inthe case of the Septuagint we may very shortly look forward to athoroughly revised text; and a similar remark may probably be made inreference to the Vulgate, but I am not aware that much has been done inthe case of the Syriac {53}, and of other versions to which referencewould have to be made in any great critical attempt, such as a revisionof the _textus receptus_ of the Old Testament. 

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

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

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

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

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

Now this I unhesitatingly declare, as I shall subsequently be able toprove, is contrary to the facts of the case. It is perfectly true thatour two eminent colleagues gave, I believe, to each one of us, from timeto time, little booklets of their text as it then stood in print, butwhich we were always warned were not considered by the editors themselvesas final. These portions of their text were given to us, not to win usover to adopt it, but to enable us to see each proposed reading in itscontinuity. How these booklets were used by the members of the Companygenerally, I know not. I can only speak for myself; but I cannotsuppress the conviction that I was acting unconsciously in the samemanner as the great majority of the Company. I only used the bookletsfor occasional reference. In preparing the portion of the sacred volumeon which we were to be engaged in the next session of the Company, I tookdue note of the readings as well as of the renderings, but I formed myjudgement independently on the evidence supplied to me by the notes ofthe critical edition, whether that of Tischendorf or Tregelles, which Ithen was in the habit of using. This evidence was always fully stated tothe Company, nearly always by Dr. Scrivener, and it was upon thediscussion of this evidence, and not on the reading of any particulareditor, on which the decision of the Company was ultimately formed. Wepaid in all cases great attention to the arguments of our two eminentcolleagues and our experienced colleague, Dr. Scrivener; but eachquestion of reading, as it arose, was settled by the votes of theCompany. The resulting text, as afterwards published by the OxfordUniversity Press, and edited by Archdeacon Palmer, was thus the directwork of the Company, and may be rightly designated, as it will be inthese pages, as the Revisers' text. 

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

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

I observe that the above-named writer expresses his satisfaction that theRevised Version has not superseded the Authorised Version in our Churches{60a}, and that things which were read at Rome in the second century maystill be read in our own Churches in the nineteenth century. This, perhaps, is a strong way of expressing his aversion to the text ofWestcott and Hort, but it is not perfectly clear that the Revisers' texthas "so closely" followed the authority of these two eminent critics asto be open, on Dr. Salmon's part, to the same measure of aversion. Untilmore accurate evidence is forthcoming that the Revisers have shown intheir text the same sort of studied disregard of Western variations as isplainly to be recognized in the text of Westcott and Hort, I can onlyfall back on my persuasion, as one who has put to the vote these criticalquestions very many times, that systematic neglect of Western authoritycannot fairly be brought home to the Revisers. It is much to beregretted then, that in the very opening chapter of his interestingvolume, Dr. Salmon roundly states that Westcott and Hort exercised a"predominating influence" on their colleagues in the revision on thequestion of various readings {60b}, and that "more than half of theirbrother members of the Committee had given no special attention to thesubject. " Now, assuming that the word "Committee" has been hereaccidentally used for the more usual term Company, I am forced to saythat both statements are really incorrect. I was permitted by God'smercy to be present at every meeting of the Company except two, and I candistinctly say that I never observed any indication of this predominatinginfluence. We knew well that our two eminent colleagues had devoted manyyears of their lives to the great work on which they were engaged; and wepaid full deference to what they urged on each reading as it came beforeus, but in the end we decided for ourselves. For it must not beforgotten that we had an eminent colleague (absent only eight times fromour 407 meetings) who took a very different view of the critical evidenceto that of Westcott and Hort, and never failed very fully, and often verypersuasively, to express it. I am of course alluding to my old friendDr. Scrivener. It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort andDr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side wasplaced before the Company, and the Company enabled to decide on a fullknowledge of the critical facts and reasonings in reference to thereading under consideration. 

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

And, as I venture to think, the text which has been constructed fromtheir decisions, their resultant text as it might be called, will showthat the Revisers' text is an independent text on which great reliancecan be placed. It is the text which I always use myself in my generalreading of the New Testament, and I deliberately regard it as one of thetwo best texts of the New Testament at present extant; the other beingthe cheap and convenient edition of Professor Nestle, bearing the title"Novum Testamentum Graece, cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et librismanu scriptis collecto. Stuttgart, 1898. " This edition is issued by theWurtemberg Bible Society, and will, as I hear, not improbably be adoptedby our own Bible Society as their Greek Testament of the future. 

The reason why I prefer these two texts for the general reading of thesacred volume is this, that they both have much in common with the textof Westcott and Hort, but are free from those peculiarities and, I fear Imust add, perversities, which do here and there mark the text of thatjustly celebrated edition. To Doctors Westcott and Hort all faithfulstudents of the New Testament owe a debt of lasting gratitude which it isimpossible to overestimate. Still, in the introductory volume by Dr. Hort, assumptions have been made, and principles laid down, which inseveral places have plainly affected the text, and led to the maintenanceof readings which, to many minds, it will seem really impossible toaccept. An instance has been given above on page 58, and this is by nomeans a solitary instance. 

Having now shown fairly, I hope, and clearly the thoroughly independentcharacter of the text which I have called the Revisers' text, I will passonward, and show the careful manner in which it was constructed, and thecircumstances under which we have it in the continuous form in which ithas been published by the Press of the University of Oxford. 

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

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

We can now turn to the first part of the rule and describe in generalterms the mode of our procedure. It differs very slightly from the modedescribed in the preface of the Revisers of the Old Testament. The verseon which we were engaged was read by the Chairman. The first questionasked was, whether there was any difference of reading in the Greek textwhich required our consideration. If there was none, we proceeded withthe second part of our work, the consideration of the rendering. Ifthere was a reading in the Greek text that demanded our consideration itwas at once discussed, and commonly in the following manner. Dr. Scrivener stated briefly the authorities, whether manuscripts, ancientversions, or patristic citations, of which details most of us werealready aware. If the alteration was one for which the evidence waspatently and decidedly preponderating, it was at once adopted, and thework went onward. If, however, it was a case where it was doubtfulwhether the evidence for the alteration _was_ thus decidedlypreponderating, then a discussion, often long, interesting, andinstructive, followed. Dr. Hort, if present (and he was seldom absent;only forty-five times out of the 407 meetings) always took part, andfinally the vote was taken, and the suggested alteration either adoptedor rejected. If adopted, due note was taken by the secretary, and, if itwas thought a case for a margin, the competing reading was thereinspecified. If there was a plain difficulty at coming to a decision, andthe passage was one of real importance, the decision was not uncommonlypostponed to a subsequent meeting, and notice duly given to all themembers of the Company. And so the great work went on to the end of thefirst revision; the members of the Company acquiring more and moreknowledge and experience, and their decisions becoming more and morejudicial and trustworthy. 

Few, I think, on reading this simple and truthful description, could failto place some confidence in results thus patiently and laboriouslyarrived at. Few, I think, could forbear a smile when they call to mindthe passionate vituperation which at first was lavished on the criticalefforts of the Revisers of the text that bears the scarcely correct nameof the _textus ab omnibus receptus_. 

But what I have specified was only the first part of our responsiblework. By the memoranda of agreement between the English Companies andthe American Committee, it had to be communicated to the American Companyof the Revisers of the Authorised Version of the New Testament, amongwhom were some whose names were well and honorably known in connexionwith textual criticism. Our work, with the American criticisms andsuggestions, had then to undergo the second revision. The greater partof the decisions relating to the text that were arrived at in the firstrevision were accepted as final; but many were reopened at the secondrevision, and the critical experience of the Company, necessarilyimproved as it had been by the first revision, finally tested by thetwo-thirds majority the reopened decisions which at the first revisionhad been carried by simple majorities. The results of this secondrevision were then, in accordance with the agreement, communicated to theAmerican Company; but, in the sequel, as will be seen in the lists of thefinal differences between ourselves and the American Company, thecritical differences were but few, and, so far as I can remember, of noserious importance. 

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

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

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

This quotation, I may remark in passing, is not only useful in explainingwhen and where marginal notes were demonstrably needed, but also inshowing how carefully such questions were considered, and howconscientiously the rules were observed under which our work was to becarried out. 

Such were the textual labours of the Company. They were based on, andwere the results of, the critical knowledge that had been slowly acquiredduring the 115 years that separated the early suggestions of Bentley fromthe pioneer text of Lachmann in 1831; and, in another generation, hadbecome expanded and matured in the later texts of Tischendorf, and stillmore so in the trustworthy and consistent text of our countrymanTregelles. The labours of these three editors were well known to thegreater part of the Revisers and generally known to all; and it was onthese labours, and on the critical methods adopted by these greateditors, that our own text was principally formed. We of course owedmuch to the long labours of our two eminent colleagues, Dr. Westcott andDr. Hort. Some of us know generally the principles on which they hadbased their yet unpublished text, and were to some extent aware of themanner in which they had grouped their critical authorities, and of thegenealogical method, which, under their expansion of it, has secured fortheir text the widespread acceptance it has met with both at home andabroad. 

Of these things some of us had a competent knowledge, but the majorityhad no special knowledge of the genealogical method. They did know thefacts on which it was based--the ascertained trustworthiness of theancient authorities as compared with the later uncial, and the cursivemanuscripts, the general characteristics of these ancient authorities, the alliances that were to be traced between some of them, and thecountries with which they were particularly connected. This the majorityknew generally as a part of the largely increased knowledge which thepreceding forty or fifty years, and the labours of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and (so far as he had then published) Tregelles, had placed at thedisposal of students of the Greek Testament. It was on this generalknowledge, and not on any portions of a partly printed text, that thedecisions of the Company were based; these decisions, however, by thevery nature of the case and the use of common authorities, wereconstantly in accordance with the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, andTregelles, and so with the subsequently printed text of Westcott andHort. 

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

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

I have now, I trust, fairly shown the independence of the Revisers' Text, and have, not without reason, complained of my friend Provost Salmon'sestimate of its dependence on the text and earnestly exerted influence ofDr. Hort and Dr. Westcott. Of course, as I have shown, there is, andmust be, much that is identical in the two texts; but, to fall back onstatistics, there are, I believe, more than two hundred places in whichthe two texts differ, and in nearly all of them--if I may venture toexpress my own personal opinion--the reading of the Revisers' Text iscritically to be preferred. Most of these two hundred places seem to beprecisely places in which the principles adopted by Westcott and Hortneed some corrective modifications. Greatly as I reverence the unweariedpatience, the exhaustive research, and the critical sagacity of these twoeminent, and now lamented, members of our former Company, I yet cannotresist the conviction that Dr. Salmon in his interesting Criticism of theText of the New Testament has successfully indicated three or moreparticulars which must cause some arrest in our final judgement on thetext of Westcott and Hort. 

In the first case it cannot be denied that, in the introductory volume, Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypothesesinto the realm of established facts. Dr. Salmon specifies one, and thata very far-reaching instance, in which, in the debatable question whetherthere really was an authoritative revision of the so-called Syrian textat about A. D. 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian revision as a _veracausa_, as opposed to a hypothetical possibility. This tendency in asubject so complicated as that of textual criticism must be taken note ofby the student, and must introduce some element of hesitation in theacceptance of confidently expressed decisions when the subject-matter maystill be very plainly debatable. 

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

The objections to this arrangement and to this nomenclature are, as Dr. Salmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and serious. In the firstplace, the title Syrian, though Dr. Salmon allows it to pass, is verymisleading, especially to the student. It is liable to be confoundedwith the term Syriac, with which it has not and is not intended to haveany special connexion, and it fails to convey the amplitude of the familyit designates. If it is to be retained at all, it must be with theprefix suggested by Dr. Schaff--the group being styled as theGraeco-Syrian. But this is of slight moment when compared with theserious objections to the term Neutral, as this term certainly tends inpractice to give to two manuscripts or even, in some cases, to one ofthem (the Codex Vaticanus), a preponderating supremacy which cannot beproperly conceded when authorities of a high character are found to beranged on the other side. There are also other grave objections whichare convincingly put forward by Dr. Salmon in the chapter he has devotedto the subject of the nomenclature of the two editors. 

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

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

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

ADDRESS IVNATURE OF THE RENDERINGS

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

It will be best then to consider the renderings in the two Testamentsseparately, and to form the best estimate we can of their character andof their subordination to the general rule, with due regard to the widelydifferent nature of the structure and grammatical principles of the twolanguages through which God has been pleased to reveal His truth to thechildren of men. 

I. We begin then with the Revised Version of the Old Testament, andnaturally turn for general guidance to the Preface of those who wereengaged in the long, diversified, and responsible work. Their generalprinciples as to departures from the Authorised Version would appear tobe included in the following clearly-specified particulars. Theydeparted from the Authorised Version (_a_) where they did not agree withit as to the meaning or construction of a word or sentence; (_b_) whereit was necessary, for the sake of uniformity, to render such parallelpassages as were identical in Hebrew by the same English words; (_c_)where the English of the Authorised Version was liable to bemisunderstood by reason of its being archaic or obscure; (_d_) where therendering of an earlier English version seemed preferable; and (_e_)where, by an apparently slight change, it was possible to bring out morefully the meaning of a passage of which the translation was substantiallyaccurate. 

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

The Revisers further notice certain particulars of which the generalreader should take full note, so much of the random criticisms of therevised text (especially in the New Testament) having been due to acomplete disregard in each case of the Preface, and of the reasons givenfor changes which long experience had shown to be both reasonable andnecessary. 

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

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

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

In passing from the Preface to the great work which it introduces, I feelthe greatest difficulty, as a member of a different Company, in makingmore than a few very general comments. In fact, I should scarcely haveventured to do even this, had I not met with a small but very instructivevolume on the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testamentwritten by one of the American Revisers, and published at New York somefifteen or sixteen years ago. The volume is entitled--perhaps withexcusable brevity--_A Companion to the Revised Old Testament_. Thewriter was Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, of the Collegiate Reformed DutchChurch of New York, from whose preface I learn that he was the onlypastor in the Company, the others being professors in theologicalseminaries, and representing seven different denominations and ninedifferent institutions. The book is written with great modesty, and asfar as I can judge, with a good working knowledge of Hebrew. The writerdisclaims in it the position of speaking in any degree for the Company ofwhich he was a member, but mentions that his undertaking was approved ofby his colleagues, and received the assistance, more or less, of all ofthem. He was a member of the Company during the last ten years of itslabours. 

I can recommend this useful volume to any student of the Old Testamentwho is desirous to see a selected list of the changes made by theRevisers in the Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetical Books, andProphetical Books. These changes are given in four chapters, and in mostcases are accompanied by explanatory comments, which from their tenoroften seem to be reminiscences of corporate discussion. I mention theseparticulars as I am not aware of any similar book on the Old Testamentwritten by any one of the English Company. If there is such a book, I dosincerely hope the writer will forgive me for not having been sofortunate as to meet with it. 

The remaining comments I shall venture to make on the rendering of theOld Testament will rest on the general knowledge I have acquired of thiscarefully-executed and conservative revision, and on some considerationof the many illustrations which Dr. Chambers has selected in hisinteresting manual. The impression that has long been left on my mind bythe serious reading of the Old Testament in the Revised Version is thatnot nearly enough has been said of the value of the changes that havebeen made, and of the strong argument they furnish for the reading of theRevision in the public services of the Church. Let any serious personread the Book of Job with the two English versions in parallel columns, and form a sober opinion on the comparison--his judgement I am confidentwill be, that if the Revision of this Book be a fair sample of theRevision generally, our congregations have a just right to claim that theRevised Version of the Old Testament should be publicly read in theirchurches. Ours is a Bible-loving country, and the English Bible in itsmost correct form can never be rightly withheld from our publicministrations. 

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

What the careful reader of Genesis will not fail to observe is the numberof passages in which comparatively small alterations give a new light todetails of the sacred narrative which, in general reading, are commonlycompletely overlooked. A new colouring, so to speak, is given to thewhole, and rectifications of prevailing conceptions not unfrequentlyintroduced, either in the text or, as often happens, by means of themargin, where they could hardly have been anticipated. The prophecy ofJacob as to the future of his children (chap. Xlix) will supply aninstance. In the character of Reuben few of us would understand morethan general unsteadiness and changefulness in purpose and in act, but aglance at the margin will show that impulse and excitability were plainlyelements in his nature which led him into the grievous and hateful sinfor which his father deposed him from the excellency of a first-born. 

What has been said of the Book of Genesis is equally applicable to theremainder of the Pentateuch. The object throughout is elucidation, notsimply correction of errors but removal of obscurity, if not by changesintroduced into the printed text, yet certainly always by the aid of themargin; as, for example, in the somewhat difficult passage of Exodusxvii. 16, where really, it would seem, that the margin might rightly havehad its place in the text. Sometimes the correction of what might seemtrivial error, as in Exodus xxxiv. 33, gives an intelligible view of thewhole details of the circumstance specified. Moses put on the veil afterhe had ceased speaking with them. While he was speaking to them he wasspeaking as God's representative. In Numbers xi. 25 the correction of amistranslation removes what might otherwise lead to a very gravemisconception, viz. That the gift of prophecy was continuous in the caseof the whole elderhood. In the chapters relating to Balaam, independently of the alterations that are made in the language of hisremarkable utterances, the mere fact of their being arranged rhythmicallycould not fail to cause the public reader, almost unconsciously, tochange his tone of voice, and to make the reading of the prophecy moredistinct and impressive. Among many useful changes in Deuteronomy onemay certainly be noticed (chap. Xx. 19), in which the obscure anddifficult clause in regard of the tree in the neighbourhood of thebesieged city is made at any rate intelligible. 

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

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

It is difficult to say much on the Revised Version of the Book of Psalms, as Coverdale's Version, as we have it in our Prayer Book, so completelyoccupies the foreground of memory and devotional interest, that I fearcomparatively few study the Bible Version or the careful and conservativework of the Revisers. This Revision, however, of the version of the Bookof Psalms deserves more attention than it appears to have received. Notonly will the faithful reader find in it the necessary corrections of theversion of 1611, but clear guidance as to the meaning of the sometimesutterly unintelligible renderings of the version of the Great Bible whichstill holds its place in our Prayer Books. To take two examples: let thereader look at the Authorised Version and Prayer Book Version of Psalmlxviii. 16, and of lxxxiv. 5, 6, and contrast with both the rendering ofthe Revised Version. This last-mentioned rendering will be found, as Ihave said, to correct the Authorised Version, and (especially in thesecond passage) to remove what is unintelligible in the Prayer Bookversion. It may thus be used by the Prayer Book reader of the Psalms asa ready and easily accessible means of arriving at the real meaning ofthe many ambiguities and obscurities which long familiarity with thePrayer Book Version has led him to pass over without any particularnotice. The revision of the Prayer Book Version has been long felt to bea very real necessity. To read and to hear read in the daily services ofthe Church what, in parts, cannot be understood can never be spirituallygood for reader or hearer. And yet, such is the really devoutconservatism of the bulk of our congregations, that though a carefulrevision, sympathetically executed, has been strongly urged by some ofour most earnest scholars and divines, it is more than doubtful whethersuch a revision ever will be carried out. If this be so, it only remainsfor us so to encourage, in our schools and in our Bible classes, theefficient explanatory help of the Revised Version. If this is steadilydone, nearly all that is at present obscure or unintelligible in thePrayer Book Version will no longer remain so to the greater part of ourworshippers. 

Of the remaining Poetical Books the revision of the Authorised Version ofthe Song of Solomon must be specially noticed. In the common version thedramatic element is almost entirely lost, the paragraphs are imperfectlynoted, and obscurities not a few the inevitable consequence. In a largedegree these serious imperfections are removed, and the whole tenor ofthis exquisite poem made clear to the general reader. The margin willshow the great care bestowed on the poem by the Revisers; and the fewnessand trifling nature of the changes maintained by the American Companywill also show, in a confessedly difficult Book, the somewhat remarkableamount of the agreement between the two Companies. On the PropheticalBooks I do not feel qualified to speak except in very general terms; andfor illustrations must refer the reader to the large list of thecorrected renderings, especially of the prophecy of Isaiah, in the usefulwork of Dr. Chambers, who has devoted at least eleven pages to thedetails of the Revisers' work on the Evangelist of the Old Covenant. Theimpression which the consideration of these details leaves on the mind ofthe reader will be, I am confident, the same as that which is I believefelt by all professed Hebrew scholars who have examined the version, viz. That it is not only faithful and thorough, but often rises to a very highlevel of poetic utterance. Let any one read aloud in the Revised Versionthe well-known passage, chap. Xiv. 12-23, already nobly rendered in theOld Version, and ask himself if the seemingly slight and trivial changeshave not maintained this splendid utterance at a uniform height ofsustained and eloquent vigour. 

In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the changes are less strikingand noticeable, not however from any diminished care in the work ofrevision, but from the tenor of the prophecies being less familiar to thegeneral reader. Four pages of instructive illustrations are supplied byDr. Chambers in the case of each of the two prophecies. The morenoticeable changes in Daniel and Hosea are also specified by Dr. Chambers, but the remainder of the minor prophets, with perhaps theexception of Habakkuk, are passed over with but little illustrativenotice. A very slight inspection however of these difficult prophecieswill certainly show two things--first, that the Revisers of 1611 didtheir work in this portion of Holy Scripture less successfully thanelsewhere; secondly, that the English and American Revisers--between whomthe differences are here noticeably very few--laboured unitedly andsuccessfully in keeping their revision of the preceding version of theseprophecies fully up to the high level of the rest of their work. 

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

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

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

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

The foremost principle to be alluded to is the one to which we adheredsteadily and persistently during the whole ten years of our labour--theprinciple of faithfulness to the original language in which it pleasedAlmighty God that His saving truth should be revealed to the children ofmen. As the lamented Bishop of Durham says most truly and forcibly inhis instructive "Lessons on the Revised Version of the New Testament{98a};" "Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was thecentral aim of the Revisers {98b}. " Faithfulness, but to what?Certainly not to "the sense and spirit of the original {98b}, " as ourcritics contended must have been meant by the rule, --but to the originalin its plain grammatical meaning as elicited by accurate interpretation. This I can confidently state was the intended meaning of the word when itappeared in the draft rule that was submitted to the Committee ofConvocation. So it was understood by them; and so, I may add, it wasunderstood by the Company, because I can clearly remember a very fulldiscussion on the true meaning of the word at one of the early meetingsof the Company. Some alteration had been proposed in the rendering ofthe Greek to which objection was made that it did not come under the ruleand principle of faithfulness. This led to a general, and, as it proved, a final discussion. Bishop Lightfoot, I remember, took an earnest partin it. He contended that our revision must be a true and thorough one;that such a meeting as ours could not be assembled for many years tocome, and that if the rendering was plainly more accurate and more trueto the original, it ought not to be put aside as incompatible with somesupposed aspect of the rule of faithfulness. Proposals were often setaside without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not "worthwhile" to make them, and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of afamiliar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal beingwithdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, andnot from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness. If theproposal was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and thematter authoritatively settled. 

The contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisersdeliberately violated the principles under which the work was committedto them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, entirelyerroneous. I have dwelt upon this matter because when properlyunderstood it clears away more than half of the objections that have beenurged against our Revision. Of the remainder I cannot but agree withgood Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision--and thecriticisms were of every form and kind "pedantry, spiritless literality, irritating triviality, destroyed rhythm, " and so forth--no criticism evercame upon us by surprise. The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heardin the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their conclusions theyhave heard since; and he goes on to say that no restatement of oldarguments had in the least degree shaken his confidence in the generalresults. Such words from one now, alas, no longer with us, but whosememory we cherish as one of the most wide-minded as well as truth-seekingof the biblical scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure thepartially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its realtrustworthiness and fidelity. But we must not confine our attentionsimply to the renderings that hold a place in the text of the RevisedVersion. We must take into our consideration a very instructive portionof the work of the Revisers which is, I fear, utterly neglected by thegeneral reader--the alternative readings and renderings that hold a placein the margin, and form an integral portion of the Revision. Though weare now more particularly considering the renderings, I include here themarginal readings, as the relation of the margins to the Version couldhardly be fully specified without taking into consideration the margin inits entirety. As readers of the Preface to the New Testament (very few, I fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly remember, alternative readings and renderings were prohibited in the case of theAuthorised Version, but, as we know, the prohibition was completelydisregarded, some thirty-five notes referring to readings, and probablymore than five hundred to alternative renderings. In the fundamentalrules of Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course wasprescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on. 

These alternative readings and renderings must be carefully considered, as in the case of renderings much light is often thrown on the trueinterpretation of the passage, especially in the more difficult portionsof the New Testament. Their relation however to the actually acceptedVersion must not be exaggerated, either in reference to readings orrenderings. I will make plain what I mean by an example. Dr. Westcottspecifies a reading of importance in John i. 18 where he states that thereading in the margin ("God only begotten") did in point of fact expressthe opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in thetext of the Version because it failed to secure the two-thirds majorityof those present at the final revision. This, perhaps, makes a littletoo much of an acceptance at a somewhat early period of the labours ofthe Company. So far as I remember the case, the somewhat startlingalteration was accepted at the first revision (when the decision was tobe by simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of coursecontinued up to the second revision. At that revision the then text andthe then margin changed places. Dr. Hort, I am well aware, published animportant pamphlet on the subject, but I have no remembrance that thefirst decision on the reading was alluded to, either at the secondrevision or afterwards, in any exceptional manner. It did but share thefate of numberless alterations at the first revision that were notfinally confirmed. 

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

I have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am especiallydesirous to encourage a far greater attention to the margin than it hashitherto received, I am equally desirous that the margin should not beelevated above its real position. That position is one of subordinationto the version actually adopted, whether when maintaining the older formor changing it. It expresses the judgement of a legal, if not also of anumerical, minority, and, in the case of difficult passages (as in Rom. Ix. 4), the judgement of groups which the Company, as a whole, deemedworthy of being recorded. But, not only should the margin thus beconsidered, but the readings and renderings preferred by the AmericanCommittee, which will often be found suggestive and helpful. These, aswe know, are now incorporated in the American Standard Edition of theRevised Bible; and the result, I fear, will be that the hitherto familiarAppendix will disappear from the smaller English editions of the RevisedVersion of the Old and New Testament. It is perhaps inevitable, but itwill be a real loss. All I can hope is that in some specified Englisheditions of the Old and New Testament each Appendix will regularly bemaintained, and that this token of the happy union of England and Americain the blessed work of revising their common version of God's holy Wordwill thus be preserved to the end. 

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

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

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

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

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

If we accept this as a correct statement of the general knowledge of theRevisers as to the language of the Greek Testament, we naturally askfurther, on what did they rely for the correct interpretation of it. Theanswer can readily be given, and it is this: Besides their generalknowledge of Greek which, in the case of the large majority, was verygreat, their knowledge of New Testament Greek was distinctly influencedby the grammatical views of Professor Winer, of whose valuable grammar ofthe Greek Testament one of our Company, as I have mentioned in my firstAddress, had been a well-known and successful translator. Though hisname was not very frequently brought up in our discussions, the influencehis grammar exerted among us, directly and indirectly, was certainlygreat; but it went no further than grammatical details. His obviousgravitation to the idea of New Testament Greek forming a sort of separatedepartment of its own probably never was shared, to any perceptibleextent, by any one of us. We did not enter very far into these matters. We knew by every day's working experience that New Testament Greekdiffered to some extent from the Greek to which we had been accustomed, and from the Septuagint Greek to which from time to time we referred. But further than this we did not go, nor care to go. We had quite enoughon our hands. We had a very difficult task to perform, we had to reviseunder prescribed conditions a version which needed revision almost inevery verse, and we had no time to enter into questions that did not thenappear to bear directly on our engrossing and responsible work. 

But now it must be distinctly admitted that recent investigation and, toa certain extent, recent discoveries have cast so much new light on NewTestament Greek that it becomes a positive duty to take intoconsideration what has been disclosed to us by the labours of the lastfifteen years as to New Testament Greek, and then fairly to face thequestion whether the particular labours of the Revisers have beenseriously affected by it. Let us bear in mind, however, that it may bequite possible that a largely increased knowledge of the position whichwhat used to be called Biblical Greek now occupies may be clearlyrecognized, and yet only comparatively few changes necessitated by it insyntactic details and renderings. But let us not anticipate. What wehave now to do is to ascertain the nature and amount of the disclosuresand new knowledge to which I have alluded. 

This may be briefly stated as emanating from a very large amount ofrecent literature on post-classical Greek, and from a careful andscientific investigation of the transition from the earlierpost-classical to the later, and thence to the modern Greek of thepresent time. Such an investigation, illustrated as it has been by thevoluminous collection of the Inscriptions, and the already large andgrowing collection of the Papyri, has thrown indirectly considerablelight on New Testament Greek, and has also called out three works, eachof a very important character, and posterior to the completion of theRevision, which deal directly with the Greek of the New Testament. Thesethree works I will now specify. 

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

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

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

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

I have now probably dealt sufficiently with the second of the threequestions which I have put forward for our consideration. I have statedthe general substance of the knowledge which has been permitted to cometo us since the revision was completed. I now pass onward to the thirdand most difficult question equitably to answer, "To what extent doesthis newly-acquired knowledge affect the correctness and fidelity of therevision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament?" It is easyenough to speak of "ignorance" on the part of the Revisers, especiallyafter what I have specified in the answer to the question on which wehave just been meditating; but the real and practical question is this, "If the Revisers had all this knowledge when they were engaged on theirwork, would it have materially affected their revision?"

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

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

When I leave the limited form of answer, and face the broad and generalquestion of the extent to which our recently-acquired knowledge affectsthe correctness and fidelity of the revision, I can only give an answerfounded on an examination of numerous passages in which I have comparedthe comments of Dr. Blass in his Grammar, and of Dr. Deissmann in his"Bible Studies with the renderings of the Revisers. " And the answer isthis, that the number of cases in which any change could reasonably berequired has been so small, so very small, that the charge of any realignorance, on the part of the Revisers, of the Greek on which they wereengaged, must be dismissed as utterly and entirely exaggerated. We havenow acquired an increased knowledge of the character of the Greek of theNew Testament, and of the place it holds in the historical transition ofthe language from the earlier post-classical to the later developments ofthe language, but this knowledge, interesting and instructive as it maybe, leaves the principles of correctly translating it practically intact. In this latter process we must deal with the language of the GreekTestament as we would deal with the language of any other Greek book, andmake the book, as far as we have the means of doing so, its owninterpreter. 

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

ADDRESS V. PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION. 

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

We have seen the steady advance in Church opinion as to its necessity;its earliest manifestations, and the silent progress from what wastentative and provisional to authoritative recognition, and to carefullyformulated procedures under the high and venerable sanction of the twoHouses of the Convocation of Canterbury. We have further seen how themovement extended to America, and how some of the best scholars anddivines of that Christian country co-operated with those of our owncountry in the arduous and responsible work of revising their commonheritage, the Version of God's most Holy Word, as set forth by authority290 years ago. We have noted too, that in this work not less than onehundred scholars and divines were engaged--for fourteen years in the caseof the Old Testament, and for ten years in the case of the NewTestament--and that this long period of labour and study was marked byregularly appointed and faithfully kept times of meeting, and by theinterchange with the Revisers on the other side of the Atlantic ofsuccessive portions of the work, until the whole was completed. 

And this Revision, as we have seen, has included a full consideration ofthe text of the original languages as well as of the renderings. In theOld Testament, adherence to the Massorite Text has left only a verylimited number of passages in which consideration of the ancient Versionwas deemed to be necessary; but, in the New Testament, as we well know, questions of textual criticism occupied a large portion of the time andattention of the Revisers, both here and in America. In regard of therenderings, we have seen the care and thoroughness with which theRevision was carried out, the marginal notes in both Testaments showingconvincingly, especially on the more difficult passages, how everyrendering that could be regarded as in any degree probable received itsfull share of consideration. Finally, it must not be forgotten that, inthe case of the New Testament, the serious question whether the researchin New Testament Greek since the Revision was completed has, to anyappreciable extent, affected the suggestive light and truth of reallyinnumerable corrections and changes--this too has been faced, and thecharge fairly met, that just conclusions drawn from the true nature ofthe Greek, gravely affecting interpretation, have been ignored by theRevisers. 

So much of the latter part of the last Address has been taken up withthis necessary duty of showing that the changes in renderings cannot beinvalidated by _a priori_ considerations founded on the allegedinsufficient knowledge, on the part of the Revisers, of the nature of theGreek they were translating, that I have not cited examples of thelight-giving and often serious nature of the changes made in theAuthorised Version. This I regretted at the time; but a littleconsideration showed me that it was much better for the cause in which Iam engaged that I should refer you for illustrations of the nature andvalue of the renderings in the Revised Version of the New Testament to asingularly fruitful and helpful volume, published only four years ago, and so subsequently to the researches in New Testament Greek of which Ihave spoken. This volume was written by a member of our Company--now, alas, no longer with us--whose knowledge of the Greek language, whetherof earlier or of later date, no one could possibly doubt. I allude tothe "Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament, " by Dr. Westcott, a volume that has not yet received the full attention which itsremarkable merits abundantly claim, for it. 

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

After the summary I have just given of the external history of this greatmovement, does not the question come home to us, Why has all this beendone? For what have the hundred labourers in the great work freely giventheir time and their energies during the four and twenty years (speakingcollectively) that were spent on the work? For what did the venerableConvocation of our Province give the weight of its sanction and authoritywhen it drew up the fundamental rules in accordance with which all hasbeen done? Can there be any other answer than this? All has been doneto bring the truth of God's most Holy Word more faithfully and morefreshly home to the hearts and consciences of our English-speakingpeople. And if this be so, how are ministers of this Holy Word to answerthe further question, When we are met together in the House of God tohear His word and His message of salvation to mankind, how hear we it?In the traditional form in which it has been heard for wellnigh threehundred years, or in a form on which, to ensure faithfulness andaccuracy, such labour has been bestowed as that which we are nowconsidering? It seems impossible to hesitate as to our answer. And yetnumbers do hesitate; and partly from indifference, partly from a vaguefear of disquieting a congregation, partly, and probably chiefly, from asense of difficulty as to the rightful mode of introducing the change, the old Version is still read, albeit with an uneasy feeling on the partof the public reader; the uneasy feeling being this, that errors inregard of Holy Scripture ought not to remain uncorrected nor obscuritiesleft to cloud the meaning of God's Word when there is a current Versionfrom which errors are removed, and in which obscurities are dissipated. Why should not such a Version be read in the ears of our people?

This is the question which I am confident many a one of you, my dearfriends, when you have been reading in your church--say theEpistles--have often felt very distinctly come home to you. Why shouldsuch a Version not be read in the ears of our people? Has it beenforbidden? No, thank God; full liberty, on the contrary, has been leftto us by the living voice of the synod of this Province that it may beread, subject to one reasonable limitation. Was it not the unanimousjudgement of the Upper House of the Convocation of our Province, confirmed by the voice of the Lower House {122}--"That the use of theRevised Version of the Bible at the lectern in the public services of theChurch, where this is desired by clergy and people, is not open to anywell-founded objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligentknowledge of Holy Scripture"? And further, was not this adopted by theLay House of our Province, even when a few doubting voices were heard{123}, and an interpretation given to the word "use, " in the form of arider, which, I can confidently say, never entered into the minds orthoughts of the members of the Upper House? Indeed, though I do not wishto criticise the decision of the House of Laymen, their appended words ofinterpretation fall to the ground. If "use" is to mean "occasionalemployment of Lessons from the Revised Version, where, in the interest ofmore accurate translation, it is desirable, " can any Lessons be foundwhere the interest of more accurate translation is not patentlyconcerned? If this be so, what meaning can we assign to "occasionalemployment"?

We see then plainly, if we are to be guided by the judgement of thevenerable body to whom the authoritative inception of Revision is aloneto be assigned, that the way to its use in the Public Services of theChurch is open to us all--_where such use is desired by clergy andpeople_. Now let us take these words seriously into our consideration. They clearly mean, however good the Version may be, that there is to beno sudden and precipitate use of the Revised Version in the appointedLessons for the day on the part of the minister of any of our parishes. If introduced, its introduction must not be simply when it is desired bythe clergyman, but when it is also desired by his people. So great achange as the displacement of the old and familiar AuthorisedVersion--for it amounts to this--in the public reading of Holy Scripturein the Services of the Church, in favour of an altered form of the oldVersion (though confessedly so altered that the general hearer wouldhardly ever recognize the displacement)--so great a change ought not tobe made without the knowledge, and further, the desire of thecongregation. 

But how is the desire for the change to be ascertained? So far as I cansee, there can be only one real and rightful way of bringing about thedesire and the manifestation of it, and that is by first of all showingsimply and plainly how, especially in the New Testament, the alterationsgive life, colouring and reality to the narratives of Evangelists, forceand lucidity to the reasonings of Apostles, and, what is of still morevital importance, deeper insight into our relations to our saving Lord, clearer knowledge of His blessed life and work here on earth, andquickened perceptions of our present and our future, and, to a very realextent, of the holy mysteries of the life of the world to come. Whenchanges of text and of renderings are shown, and they can be shown, tobear with them these fuller revelations of God's Holy Word, there will beno lack of desire, and of the manifestation of it, in any congregation, for the public use of a Version through which such disclosures as I havespecified can be brought home to the truth-seeking believer. 

My fixed opinion therefore is this, that though, after a long and carefulconsideration of the subject, I do sincerely desire that the RevisedVersion should be introduced into the churches of this diocese, I do alsosincerely desire that it should not be introduced without a duepreparation of the congregation for the change, and some manifestation oftheir desire for the change. There will probably be a few churches inour diocese in which the Revised Version is used already, and in regardof them nothing more will be necessary than, from time to time, inoccasional addresses, to allude to any important changes that may haveappeared in the Lessons and recent readings of Holy Scripture, and thusto keep alive the thoughtful study of that which will be more and morefelt to be, in the truest sense of the words, the Book of Life. But, inthe great majority of our churches--though in many cases there may havebeen passing desires to read and to hear God's Word in its most truthfulform--no forward steps will have been taken. It is in reference then tothis great majority of cases that I have broken my long silence, and, before my ministry closes, have resolved to bring before you the wholehistory of the greatest spiritual movement that has taken place since theReformation; and also to indicate the untold blessings the Revision willbear to those who avail themselves of it in all reverent earnestness anddevotion. 

Thus far I hope I have made it plain that any forward steps that may betaken can only hopefully be taken when, both in the case of pastor andpeople, due preparation shall have been made for what, in the sequel, will be found to be an enduring spiritual change in the relation of thesoul of the devout hearer or reader to the Book of Life. He will learnnot only faithfully to read the inspired Word, but inwardly to love it. 

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

In regard of the Old Testament I have said in my last Address that I donot myself know of any guide-book, written by a Reviser, save theinteresting volume by Dr. Talbot Chambers, to which I have been indebtedfor much that, being a member of another Company, I could not havebrought forward without his assistance. In regard of the New Testament, however, it is otherwise. There is a useful volume by my old friend andformer colleague the late Prebendary Humphry; but the volume which I mostearnestly desire to name is the volume already mentioned, and entitled"Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament, " by the lateBishop of Durham. This book is simply indispensable for any one desirousof preparing himself for the duty of introducing the Revised Version ofthe New Testament into the Public Services of his parish. It is one ofthose rare and remarkable books that not only give the neededexplanation, but also cast a light on the whole spiritual results of thechange, and constantly awaken in the reader some portion of theenthusiasm with which the Bishop records changes that many an earnest anddevout reader might think belonged only to the details of grammaticalaccuracy. I thus cannot forbear quoting a few lines in which the Bishop, after alluding to the change in Matt. Xxviii. 19, _into_ (not _in_) _thename of the Father and of the Holy Ghost_, and the change in Rom. Vi. 23, _eternal life in_ (not _through_) _Christ Jesus our Lord_, thus speaksfrom his inmost soul: "Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered themeaning of those two prepositions now truly rendered--'_into_ the name, ''_in_ Christ'--has found the central truth of Christianity? Certainly Iwould gladly have given the ten years of my life spent on the Revision tobring only these two phrases of the New Testament to the heart ofEnglishmen. " Is it too much to say that a volume written by a guide suchas this is simply indispensable for any one who prepares himself forintroducing to his people--the government of whose souls has beencommitted to him--the Revised Version of the New Testament of our Lordand Master Jesus Christ. 

With the help that I have specified any one of you, my dear friends, might adequately prepare himself for the duty and responsibility oftaking the next step, the preparation of his congregation for hearing theWord of God in the form that most nearly approaches in our own languagewhat prophets, evangelists, and apostles have written for our learningunder the inspiration of God. This preparation may be carried on in manyforms, by pastoral visitations, through our Bible classes, through theefforts of our mission preachers in the holy seasons, but obviously mosthopefully and persuasively by the living voice of the faithful pastor inhis public ministrations in the pulpit of his church. Parishes differ somuch in spiritual culture that probably no method of preparation could bespecified that would be equally applicable to all. Still in the case ofour country parishes I am persuaded our preparation must come from thepulpit and in a manner carefully thought out and prearranged. Let megive some indication of a mode of bringing the subject forward in acountry parish that would call out the desire for the regular use of theRevised Version in the reading of the Lessons for the day. 

Let us suppose a month set apart for the preparation. On the firstSunday let an account be given of the circumstances, and especially theauthority under which the Revision came into existence. On the secondSunday let illustrations be given of the nature of the Revision fromthose parts in Bishop Westcott's "Lessons of the Revised Version of theNew Testament" which made the deepest impression during the study of thatsuggestive and spiritual volume. On the third Sunday let comments bemade on the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons forthe day from the Old Testament. Here the preacher may find somedifficulty, as want of knowledge of Hebrew or of the right interpretationof the passage in which the alteration is made might prevent his clearlystating the reasons for it. In such cases a good modern Commentary onthe Old Testament would probably supply the needed assistance. The mostavailable Commentary I know of for the purpose is the one published byMessrs. Cassells, and now sold at the low price--for both Testaments--ofthirty-five shillings. On the fourth Sunday, the preacher's subjectshould be the most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessonsfrom the New Testament. For this there would be abundant help suppliedby the volume of Bishop Westcott, and, if needed, by the Commentary onthe New Testament to which I have alluded. 

Now I sincerely believe that if this very simple and feasible plan werecarried out in any parish, two results would certainly follow: first, that the Revised Version would be desired and welcomed; secondly, that aninterest in God's Holy Word would be called out in the parish and itsBible classes that would make a lasting impression on the whole spirituallife of the place. We have many faults, but we are a Bible-lovingnation, and we have shown it in many crises of our history; and thus, Iam persuaded, in a change such as I have suggested, the old love would becalled out afresh, and would display itself in a manner we might neverhave expected. 

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

Perhaps the present time may be of greater moment in regard of the studyof Holy Scripture, and especially of the language of the Greek Testament, than we may now be able distinctly to foresee. I mentioned in my lastAddress the large amount of research, during the last fifteen years, inreference to the Greek of the New Testament and the position which thesacred volume, considered simply historically and as a collection ofwritings in the Greek language of the first century after Christ, reallydoes hold in the general history of a language which, in its latest form, is widely spoken to this very day. I mentioned also what seemed to bethe most reasonable opinion, viz. That the Greek of the New Testament wasthe spoken Greek of the time, neither literary Greek nor the Greek of thelower class, but Greek such as men would use at that time when they hadto place in the definiteness of writing the language which passed fromtheir lips in their converse with their fellow-men. Now, that advantagewill be taken of this, and that it will be used to show that thespiritual deductions that we draw from the written words cannot be fullyrelied on, because old distinctions have been obscured or obliterated, iswhat I fear, in days such as these, will often be used against thefaithful reading, marking, and learning of the Written Word. But weshall hear them, I hope, with the two true conclusive answers everpresent in the soul, the answer of plain human reasoning, and the deeperanswer which revelation brings seriously home to us. In regard of thefirst answer, does not plain common sense justify us in maintaining thatthe writers meant what they _wrote_, and that when they used certainGreek words in the mighty message they were delivering to theirfellow-men and to all who should hereafter receive it, they did mean thatthose words were to be understood in the plain and simple meaning thatevery plain reader would assign to them. They were not speaking; theywere writing; and they were writing what they knew was to be for alltime. Thus to take an example from the passages above referred to ofwhich Bishop Westcott makes such impressive use, who can doubt, with anyfair show of reason--however frequent may be the interchange of theparticular prepositions in the first century--that, in those passages, when St. Matthew wrote [Greek text] he did mean _into_; and that when St. Paul used [Greek text], he did mean _in_, in the simplest sense of theword?

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

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

And is there not a second thought, far too much lost sight of in ourinvestigation of the written word of the New Testament--that just as thewriters had their human powers quickened and strengthened by the HolyGhost for the full setting forth of the Gospel message by their spokenwords, so in regard of their written words would the same blessedguidance be vouchsafed to them? And if so, is it not right for us, notonly to draw from their words all that by the plain laws of language theycan be understood to convey to us, but also to do what has been done inthe Revised Version, and to find the nearest equivalent our languagesupplies for the words in the original?

These thoughts might be carried much further, but enough has been said tojustify the minute care that has been taken in the renderings of thewritten word of the New Testament by the Revisers, and further, thevalidity of the deductions that may be drawn from their use of one wordrather than another, especially in the case of words that might seem tobe practically synonymous. It may be quite true that, in the currentGreek of the time, many of the distinctions that were valid in an earlierperiod of the language were no longer observed; and of this we find manyindications in the Greek Testament. But it must be remembered that wealso find in the Greek Testament a vastly preponderating portion of whatis grammatically correct according to the earlier standard, and oftenclear indications that what was so written must have been definitelymeant by the writer. Is it not then our clearest duty, rememberingalways that what we are translating is the Gospel message, to do what theRevisers did, to render each passage in accordance with the recognizedmeaning of the words, and in harmony with the plain tenor of the context?

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

 * * * * *

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

 OXFORD: HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

Works by the same Author. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BEING OF GOD (Six Addresses on). Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s. _6_d. _

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

{12} Preface to the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospelaccording to St. John by Five Clergymen, p. Xii. As I remark afterwards, this preface proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatlyhelped the cause. The book has long since gone out of print, but if anyreader of this note should come across it, this preface will be foundwell worth reading, as it will show what was in the minds of many besidethe Five Clergymen five and forty years ago. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{44} Since the above was written, information reaches me that an_American Standard Revision of the Bible_ either just has been, orshortly will be, published, which though not simply an incorporation ofthe recorded American preferences, as long specified in our copies of theRevision, is a publication resting on authority, and likely to put a stopto what is unauthorised. As the reader may like to know a little aboutthis _American Standard Revision of the Bible_, I will, at the risk of along note, mention what I have ascertained up to the present time. Thesurvivors of the Old Testament Company (Dr. Osgood and others) with thethree surviving members of the New Testament Company (Dr. Dwight, Dr. Riddle, and Dr. Thayer--very powerful helpers) have co-operated inbringing out a new edition of the Revision as it has been hithertocurrent in America. It will contain about _twice as many_ deviationsfrom the English Revised Version as appear in the original Appendices;but, in regard of them, the survivors give this important assurance, that"the survivors have not felt at liberty to make new changes of momentwhich were not favourably passed upon (_sic_) by their associates, at onestage or another of the original preparation of the work. " They specifythat the original Appendix was prepared in haste and did not, in asatisfactory manner, express the real views of the Committee. They claimto have drawn up a body of improved marginal references, to have whollyremoved archaisms, to have supplied running headings, to have modifiedwhat they consider unwieldy paragraphs, to have lightened what theyregard as clumsy punctuation, and by typographical arrangements, such asby leaving a line blank, to have indicated the main transitions ofthought in the Epistles and Apocalypse. These and other characteristicswill be found specified in the American _Sunday School Times_ for August11, 1901, in an article apparently derived from those interested. Tillwe see the book we must suspend our judgement. 

{50} See an article by Rev. J. F. Thrupp in Smith's _Dictionary of theBible_, vol. Ii. Art. Old Testament. 

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

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

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

{60a} Salmon, p. 157. 

{60b} Ibid. , p. 12. 

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

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

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

{98b} Page 18. 

{106} See page 32. 

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

{110a} Page 175. 

{110b} London, Macmillan, 1898. 

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

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

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

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

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