diff options
Diffstat (limited to '25412-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 25412-h/25412-h.htm | 3588 |
1 files changed, 3588 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/25412-h/25412-h.htm b/25412-h/25412-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..04f53fc --- /dev/null +++ b/25412-h/25412-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3588 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.headingsummary { margin-left: 5%;} + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: left; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + color: gray;} + + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture, by C. J. Ellicott</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy +Scripture, by C. J. Ellicott + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture + + +Author: C. J. Ellicott + + + +Release Date: May 9, 2008 [eBook #25412] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ADDRESSES ON THE REVISED VERSION +OF HOLY SCRIPTURE*** +</pre> +<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p> +<p>Transcribed from the 1901 Society for Promoting Christian +Knowledge edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>Addresses on the Revised<br /> +Version of Holy<br /> +Scripture.</h1> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">by</span><br /> +C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">bishop of +gloucester</span>,<br /> +<span class="smcap">and hon. fellow of st. john’s +college</span>, <span class="smcap">cambridge</span>.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">published under +the direction of the tract committee</span>.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">LONDON:<br /> +SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,<br /> +<span class="smcap">northumberland avenue</span>,<span +class="smcap"> w.c.</span>;<span class="smcap"> 43 queen victoria +street</span>,<span class="smcap"> e.c.</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Brighton</span>: 129 <span +class="smcap">North Street</span>.<br /> +<span class="smcap">New York</span>: E. & J. B. YOUNG & +CO.<br /> +1901.</p> +<h2><!-- page 3--><a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +3</span>PREFATORY NOTE.</h2> +<p>The following Addresses form the Charge to the Archdeaconry of +Cirencester at the Visitation held at the close of October in the +present year. The object of the Charge, as the opening +words and the tenor of the whole will abundantly indicate, is +seriously to suggest the question, whether the time has not now +arrived for the more general use of the Revised Version at the +lectern in the public service of the Church.</p> +<p style="text-align: right">C. J. <span +class="smcap">Gloucester</span>.</p> +<p><i>October</i>, 1901.</p> +<h2><!-- page 4--><a name="page4"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +4</span>CONTENTS.</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right"> </p> +</td> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">page</span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Address</span> I.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Early History of Revision</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">,, II.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Later History of Revision</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page17">17</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">„ III.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Hebrew and Greek Text</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page48">48</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">,, IV.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Nature of the Renderings</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page81">81</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">„ V.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Public Use of the Version</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page117">117</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> </p> +<h2><!-- page 5--><a name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +5</span>ADDRESS I.<br /> +<span class="smcap">Early History of Revision</span>.</h2> +<p>As there now seem to be sufficient grounds for thinking that +ere long the Revised Version of Holy Scripture will obtain a +wider circulation and more general use than has hitherto been +accorded to it, it seems desirable that the whole subject of the +Revised Version, and its use in the public services of the +Church, should at last be brought formally before the clergy and +laity, not only of this province, but of the whole English +Church.</p> +<p>Twenty years have passed away since the appearance of the +Revised Version of the New Testament, and the presentation of it +by the writer of these pages to the Convocation of Canterbury on +May 17, 1881. Just four more years afterwards, viz. on +April 30, 1885, the Revised Version of the Old Testament <!-- +page 6--><a name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 6</span>was +laid before the same venerable body by the then Bishop of +Winchester (Bp. Harold Browne), and, similarly to the Revised +Version of the New Testament, was published simultaneously in +this country and America. It was followed, after a somewhat +long interval, by the Revised Version of the Apocrypha, which was +laid before Convocation by the writer of these pages on February +12, 1896.</p> +<p>The revision of the Authorised Version has thus been in the +hands of the English-speaking reader sixteen years, in the case +of the Canonical Scriptures, and five years in the case of the +Apocrypha—periods of time that can hardly be considered +insufficient for deciding generally, whether, and to what extent, +the Revised Version should be used in the public services of the +Church.</p> +<p>I have thus thought it well, especially after the unanimous +resolution of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, +three years ago <a name="citation6"></a><a href="#footnote6" +class="citation">[6]</a>, and the very recent resolution of the +House of Laymen, to place before you the question <!-- page +7--><a name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 7</span>of the +use of the Revised Version in the public services of the Church, +as the ultimate subject of this charge. I repeat, as the +ultimate subject, for no sound opinion on the public use of this +version can possibly be formed unless some general knowledge be +acquired, not only of the circumstances which paved the way for +the revision of the time-honoured version of 1611, but also of +the manner in which the revision was finally carried out. +We cannot properly deal with a question so momentous as that of +introducing a revised version of God’s Holy Word into the +services of the Church, without knowing, at least in outline, the +whole history of the version which we are proposing to +introduce. This history then I must now place before you +from its very commencement, so far as memory and a nearly +life-long connexion with the subject enable me to speak.</p> +<p>The true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, more +particularly, of the revision <!-- page 8--><a +name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>of the New +Testament, must be regarded as the grammar written by a young +academic teacher, George Benedict Winer, as far back as 1822, +bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language of the New +Testament. It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, +and indeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed in +commentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenth +centuries. It met with at first the fate of all assaults on +prevailing unscientific procedures, but its value and its truth +were soon recognized. The volume passed through several +successively improved editions, until in 1855 the sixth edition +was reached, and issued with a new and interesting preface by the +then distinguished and veteran writer. This edition formed +the basis of the admirable and admirably supplemented translation +of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, which was +published in 1870, passed through a second edition six years +afterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard +grammar, in an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this +day.</p> +<p>The claim that I have put forward for this remarkable book as +the fountain-head of <!-- page 9--><a name="page9"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 9</span>revision can easily be justified when +we call to memory how very patently the volume, in one or another +of its earlier editions, formed the grammatical basis of the +commentaries of De Wette and Meyer, and, here in England, of the +commentary of Alford, and of critical and grammatical +commentaries on some of St. Paul’s Epistles with which my +own name was connected. It was to Winer that we were all +indebted for that greater accuracy of interpretation of the Greek +Testament which was recognized and welcomed by readers of the New +Testament at the time I mention, and produced effects which had a +considerable share in the gradual bringing about of important +movements that almost naturally followed.</p> +<p>What came home to a large and increasing number of earnest and +truth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this—that +there were inaccuracies and errors in the current version of the +Holy Scriptures, and especially of the New Testament, which +plainly called for consideration and correction, and further +brought home to very many of us that this could never be brought +about except by an authoritative revision.</p> +<p>This general impression spread somewhat <!-- page 10--><a +name="page10"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 10</span>rapidly; and +soon after the middle of the last century it began to take +definite shape. The subject of the revision of the +Authorised Version of the New Testament found a place in the +religious and other periodicals of the day <a +name="citation10a"></a><a href="#footnote10a" +class="citation">[10a]</a>, and as the time went on was the +subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded to even in +Convocation <a name="citation10b"></a><a href="#footnote10b" +class="citation">[10b]</a> and Parliament <a +name="citation10c"></a><a href="#footnote10c" +class="citation">[10c]</a>. As yet however there had been +no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by its +numerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally <!-- page +11--><a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +11</span>entertained as to the form that a revision might +ultimately take. It was feared by many that any +authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance and +influence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of Holy +Scripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions +that were prevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the +cause of sound religion in our Church and in our nation.</p> +<p>There was thus a real danger, unless some forward step was +quickly and prudently taken, that the excitement might gradually +evaporate, and the movement for revision might die out, as has +often been the case in regard of the Prayer Book, into the old +and wonted acquiescence of the past.</p> +<p>It was just at this critical time that an honoured and +influential churchman, who was then the popular and successful +secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. +Ernest Hawkins, afterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and +persuaded a few of us, who had the happiness of being his +friends, to combine and publish a version of one of the books of +the New Testament which might practically demonstrate to friends +and to opponents what sort of a revision <!-- page 12--><a +name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>seemed +desirable under existing circumstances. After it had been +completed we described it “as a <i>tentamen</i>, a careful +endeavour, claiming no finality, inviting, rather than desiring +to exclude, other attempts of the same kind, calling the +attention of the Church to the many and anxious questions +involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular +language, and offering some help towards the settlement of those +questions <a name="citation12"></a><a href="#footnote12" +class="citation">[12]</a>.”</p> +<p>The portion of Scripture selected was the Gospel according to +St. John. Those who undertook the revision were five in +number:—Dr. Barrow, the then Principal of St. +Edmund’s Hall, Oxford; Dr. Moberly, afterwards Bishop of +Salisbury; Rev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury; Rev. +W. G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin’s in the Fields; and +lastly, the writer of this charge. Mr. Ernest Hawkins, busy +as he was, acted to a great extent as our secretary, +superintended arrangements, <!-- page 13--><a +name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 13</span>and +encouraged and assisted us in every possible manner. Our +place of meeting was the library of our hospitable colleague Mr. +Humphry. We worked in the greatest possible harmony, and +happily and hopefully concluded our Revision of the Authorised +Version of the Gospel of St. John in the month of March, +1857.</p> +<p>Our labours were introduced by a wise and attractive preface, +written mainly by Dr. Moberly, in the lucid, reverent, and +dignified language that marked everything that came from the pen +of the late Bishop of Salisbury.</p> +<p>The effect produced by this <i>tentamen</i> was indisputably +great. The work itself was of course widely criticized, but +for the most part favourably <a name="citation13"></a><a +href="#footnote13" class="citation">[13]</a>. The +principles laid down in the preface were generally considered +reasonable, and the possibilities of an authoritative revision +distinctly increased. The work in fact became a kind of +object lesson.</p> +<p>It showed plainly that there <i>were</i> errors in the +Authorised Version that needed correction. It further +showed that their removal and the introduction of improvements in +regard of accuracy did not involve, either in quantity <!-- page +14--><a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 14</span>or +quality, the changes that were generally apprehended. And +lastly, it showed in its results that <i>scholars</i> of +different habits of thought could combine in the execution of +such a work without friction or difficulty.</p> +<p>In regard of the Greek text but little change was +introduced. The basis of our translation was the third +edition of Stephens, from which we only departed when the amount +of external evidence in favour of a different reading was plainly +overwhelming. As we ourselves state in the preface, +“our object was to revise a version, not to frame a +text.” We should have obscured this one purpose if we +had entered into textual criticism.</p> +<p>Such was the tentative version which prepared the way for +authoritative revision.</p> +<p>More need not be said on this early effort. The version +of the Gospel of St. John passed through three editions. +The Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians appeared in 1858, and +the first three of the remaining Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians, +and Philippians) in 1861. The third edition of the Revision +of the Authorised Version of St. John was issued in 1863, with a +preface in which the general estimate of the revision was +discussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative +<!-- page 15--><a name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +15</span>procedure in reference to the whole question. As +our little band had now been reduced to four, and its general aim +and object had been realized, we did not deem it necessary to +proceed with a work which had certainly helped to remove most of +the serious objections to authoritative revision. Our +efforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were +then appearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, +by the important work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, +Trench, entitled “On the Authorised Version of the New +Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its +revision.” This appeared in 1858. After the +close of our tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as +they may be termed) of the movement did but little except, from +time to time, confer with one another on the now yearly improving +prospects of authoritative revision. In 1869 Dean Alford +published a small handy revised version of the whole of the Greek +Testament, and, a short time afterwards, I published a small +volume on the “Revision of the English Version,” in +which I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and +vigorous translation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised +Version, and how little of this <!-- page 16--><a +name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>would ever be +likely to disappear in any authoritatively revised version of the +future. Some estimate also was made of the amount of +changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the +Gospels. A few months later, a very valuable volume +(“On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament”) was +published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot, which +appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of a +revision of the Authorised Version of God’s Holy Word was +about to be realized.</p> +<p>All now was ready for a definite and authoritative +commencement. Of this, and of the later history of +Revision, a brief account will be given in the succeeding +Address.</p> +<h2><!-- page 17--><a name="page17"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +17</span>ADDRESS II.<br /> +<span class="smcap">Later History of Revision</span>.</h2> +<p>We are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative +and preparatory passed into definite and authoritative +realization.</p> +<p>The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper +House of the Convocation of Canterbury. The Bishop of +Oxford, seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the +subjoined resolution, which it may be desirable to give in the +exact words in which it was presented to the House, as indicating +the caution with which it was framed, and also the indirectly +expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence of +the Northern Convocation. The resolution was as +follows:</p> +<blockquote><p>“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, <!-- page 18--><a name="page18"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 18</span>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.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was +amended by the insertion of the words “Old and,” so +as to include both Testaments, and, so amended, was unanimously +accepted by the Upper House, and at once sent down to the Lower +House. After debate it was accepted by them, and, having +been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the +arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.</p> +<p>Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except +so far as plainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of +Canterbury, on thus undertaking one of the greatest works ever +attempted by Convocation during its long and eventful history, +followed every course, adopted every expedient, and carefully +took every precaution to bring the great work it was preparing to +undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.</p> +<p>It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, <!-- page +19--><a name="page19"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 19</span>that +in accordance with the primary resolution which I have specified, +a committee was appointed of eight members of the Upper House, +and, in accordance with the regular rule, sixteen members of the +Lower House, with power, as specified, to confer with the +Convocation of York. The members of the Upper House were as +follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids +(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely +(Harold Browne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; +who soon after withdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), +and myself.</p> +<p>The members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. +Bickersteth, Dean of Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury +(Alford), Westminster (Stanley), and Lincoln (Jeremie); the +Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter (Freeman), and Rochester +(Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons Blakesley, How, Selwyn, +Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De Winton.</p> +<p>Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting +of Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five +resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind +them, were accepted <!-- page 20--><a name="page20"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 20</span>unanimously by the Upper House, and +by large majorities in the Lower House:</p> +<blockquote><p>“1. That it is desirable that a +revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be +undertaken.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the +language employed in the existing version be closely +followed.</p> +<p>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.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally +expressed by the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable +body. The second and third rules deserve our especial +attention in reference to the amount of the emendations and +alterations which <!-- page 21--><a name="page21"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 21</span>have been introduced during the work +of revision. This amount, it is now constantly said, is not +only excessive, but in distinct contravention of the rules which +were laid down by Convocation. A responsible and deeply +respected writer, the late Bishop of Wakefield, only a few years +ago plainly stated in a well-known periodical <a +name="citation21"></a><a href="#footnote21" +class="citation">[21]</a> that the revisers “largely +exceeded their instructions, and did not adhere to the principles +they were commissioned to follow.” This is a very +grave charge, but can it be substantiated? The second and +third rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt +necessity on the part of “the most competent +scholars,” and these last-mentioned must surely be +understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for the +work. In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of +Convocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was +to be faithfulness to the original. All then that can +justly be said in reference to the Revisers is this,—not +that they exceeded their instructions (a very serious charge), +but that their estimate of what constituted <!-- page 22--><a +name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 22</span>faithfulness, +and involved the necessity of change, was, from time to time, in +the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated. +Such language however as that used in reference to the changes +made by the Revisers as “unnecessary and uninstructive +alterations,” and “irritating trivialities,” +was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the judgement arrived +at.</p> +<p>But to proceed. On the presentation of the Report it was +stated that the committee had not been able to confer with the +Northern Convocation, as no committee had been appointed by +them. It was commonly supposed that the Northern President +(Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the two Houses, +who at that time sat together, had taken a very different view <a +name="citation22"></a><a href="#footnote22" +class="citation">[22]</a>, as our President informed us that he +had received a communication from the Convocation of York to the +effect that—“The Authorised Version of the English +Bible is accepted, not only by the <!-- page 23--><a +name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 23</span>Established +Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the +English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; +and that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from +time to time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any +recasting of its text. That Convocation accordingly did not +think it necessary to appoint a committee to co-operate with the +committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury, though +favourable to the errors being rectified.”</p> +<p>This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the +Northern Convocation. We sincerely regretted the decision, +as there were many able and learned men in the York Convocation +whose co-operation we should have heartily welcomed. Delay, +however, was now out of the question. The working out of +the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the Convocation +that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed +revision.</p> +<p>The course of our proceedings was then as follows:</p> +<p>After the Report of the committee had been accepted by the +Upper House, and communicated to the Lower House, the following +resolution was unanimously adopted by the <!-- page 24--><a +name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 24</span>Upper House +(May 3, 1870), and in due course sent down to the Lower +House:</p> +<blockquote><p>“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.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop +that as this was a committee of an exceptional character, being +in fact an executive committee, the Lower House would not +appoint, as in ordinary committees, twice the number of the +members appointed by the Upper House, but simply an equal +number. This request, though obviously a very reasonable +request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to +without some debate and even remonstrance. This, however, +was overcome and quieted by the conciliatory good sense and +firmness of the Prolocutor; and, on the following day, the +resolution was accepted by the Lower House, and the Prolocutor +(Bickersteth) with <!-- page 25--><a name="page25"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 25</span>the Deans of Canterbury (Alford) and +Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford (Rose), Canons +Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed as +members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.</p> +<p>This Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of +choosing experts, and, out of them and their own members, forming +two Companies, the one for the revision of the Authorised Version +of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the +Authorised Version of the New Testament. Rules had to be +drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying out in +detail of the whole of the proposed work. In this work it +may be supposed that considerable difficulty would have been +found in the choice of biblical scholars in addition to those +already appointed by Convocation. This, however, did not +prove to be the case. I was at that time acting as a kind +of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of Dr. Moulton +and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of distinguished +biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in England +and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be +made. When we met together <!-- page 26--><a +name="page26"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 26</span>finally to +choose, there was thus no lack of suitable names.</p> +<p>In regard of the many rules that had to be made for the +orderly carrying out of the work I prepared, after careful +conference with the Bishop of Winchester, a draft scheme which, +so far as I remember, was in the sequel substantially adopted by +what I have termed the Permanent Committee of Convocation. +When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870, the +names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed +upon, and invitations at once sent out. The members of the +Committee had already been assigned to their special companies; +viz. to the Old Testament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, +Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who soon after resigned), and Bath and +Wells; and from the Lower House, Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, +Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New Testament Company, the Bishops +of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and Salisbury; and from +the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of Canterbury and +Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 27--><a name="page27"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 27</span>Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. +Gotch, Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, +Canon Payne Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor +Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr. Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. +Wright of Cambridge, the active and valuable secretary of the +Company.</p> +<p>Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.</p> +<p>Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as +follows:—Dr. Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of +Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie, Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. +Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot, Professor +Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman, Professor Newth, +Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol College), +Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth), Dr. +Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.</p> +<p>Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from +feeble health and preoccupation on his great work, the critical +edition of the New Testament, was unable to attend. It +should be here mentioned that soon after the formation of the +company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of Westminster, +afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed <!-- page 28--><a +name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>by the +Company as their secretary. A more accurate, punctual, and +indefatigable secretary it would have been impossible for us to +have selected for the great and responsible work.</p> +<p>On the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out +of the revision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in +draft were all duly considered by the committee and carried, and +the way left clear and open for the commencement of the +work. These rules (copies of which will be found in nearly +all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto issued by the +Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the +fundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which +have been already specified.</p> +<p>The first of these subsidiary rules was as +follows:—“To introduce as few alterations as possible +in the text of the Authorised Version consistently with +faithfulness.” This rule must be read in connexion +with the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I +have already made on those rules.</p> +<p>The second of the rules of the committee was as +follows:—“To limit, as far as possible, the +expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorised +and earlier English versions.” This rule was +carefully attended to <!-- page 29--><a name="page29"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 29</span>in its reference to the Authorised +Version. I do not however remember, in the revision of the +version of the New Testament, that we often fell back on the +renderings of the earlier English versions. They were +always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there +were differences of rendering, we frequently considered the +renderings of the ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, +Syriac, and Coptic, and occasionally of the Gothic and +Armenian. To these, however, the rule makes no +allusion.</p> +<p>The third rule speaks for itself:—“Each Company to +go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the +second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter +is provided.”</p> +<p>The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the +text, and is an amplification of the last part of the third +fundamental rule. The rule of the committee is as +follows:—“That the text to be adopted be that for +which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when the +text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised +Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the +margin.” The subject of the text is continued in the +fifth rule, which is as follows:—“To make or retain +no change in the text on the second final revision <!-- page +30--><a name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 30</span>by +the Company except <i>two-thirds</i> of those present approve of +the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple +majorities.”</p> +<p>The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament +Company (I do not know how it may have been in the Old Testament +Company) was very rarely acted upon:—“In every case +of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to +defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the +same shall be required by one-third of those present at the +meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the +next meeting.” The only occasion on which I can +remember this rule being called into action was a comparatively +unimportant one. At the close of a long day’s work we +found ourselves differing on the renderings of “tomb” +or “sepulchre” in one of the narratives of the +Resurrection. This was easily and speedily settled the +following morning.</p> +<p>The seventh rule was as follows:—“To revise the +headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and +punctuation.” This rule was very carefully attended +to except as regards headings of chapters and pages. These +were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of +direct interpretation, that <!-- page 31--><a +name="page31"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 31</span>both +Companies agreed to leave this portion of the work to some +committee of the two University Presses that they might +afterwards think fit to appoint. Small as the work might +seem to be if only confined to the simple revision of the +existing headings, the time it would have taken up, if undertaken +by the Companies, would certainly have been considerable. I +revised, on my own account, the headings of the chapters in St. +Matthew, and was surprised to find how much time was required to +do accurately and consistently what might have seemed a very easy +and inconsiderable work.</p> +<p>The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very +rarely acted upon: “To refer, on the part of each Company, +when considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary +men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.” +How far this was acted on by the Old Testament Company I do not +know. In regard of the New Testament Company the only +instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule, +was in reference to our renderings of portions of the +twenty-seventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In this +particular case we sent our sheets to the Admiralty, and asked +the First <!-- page 32--><a name="page32"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 32</span>Sea Lord (whom some of us knew) +kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were +nautically correct. I believe this friendly and competent +authority did not find anything amiss. It has sometimes +been said that it would have been better, especially in reference +to the New Testament, if this rule had been more frequently acted +on, and if matters connected with English and alterations of +rhythm had been brought before a few of our more distinguished +literary men. It may be so; though I much doubt whether in +matters of English the Greek would not always have proved the +dominant arbiter. In matters of rhythm it is equally +doubtful whether much could have been effected by appealing to +the ears of others. At any rate we preferred trusting to +our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards mention, a mode of +testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been improved +upon.</p> +<p>The concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: +“That the work of each Company be communicated to the +other, as it is completed, in order that there may be as little +deviation from uniformity in language as possible.”</p> +<p>All preliminaries were now settled. The <!-- page +33--><a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +33</span>invitations were issued, and, with the exceptions of +Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were readily +accepted. Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor +Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added +to those already mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament +Company, and, in less than a month after the meeting of the +committee on May 25, both Companies had entered upon their +responsible work. On June 22, 1870, both Companies, after a +celebration of the Holy Communion, previously announced by Dean +Stanley as intended to be administered by him in Westminster +Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII, commenced the long-looked-for +revision of the Authorised Version of God’s Holy +Word. The Old Testament Company commenced their work in the +Chapter Library; the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem +Chamber.</p> +<p>The number of the members in each Company was very nearly the +same, viz. twenty-seven in the Old Testament Company, and, in +nominal attendance, twenty-six in the New Testament +Company. In the former Company, owing to the longer time +found necessary for the work (fourteen years), there were more +changes in the composition of the Company <!-- page 34--><a +name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>than in the +case of the latter Company, which completed its work three years +and a half before its sister Company. At the close of the +work on the New Testament (1880), the numbers in each Company +were twenty-six and twenty-five; but owing to various reasons, +and especially the distance of many of the members from London, +the number in actual and regular attendance was somewhat reduced +as the years went onward. How it fared with the Old +Testament Company I cannot precisely state. Bishop Harold +Browne, after his accession to the See of Winchester, was only +able to attend twice or three times after the year 1875. In +that year Bishop Thirlwall died, and Bishop Ollivant ceased to +attend, but remained a corresponding member till his death in +1882. Vacancies, I am informed, were filled up till October +1875, after which date no new members were added. The +Company, however, worked to the very end with great devotion and +assiduity. The revision occupied 794 days, and was +completed in eighty-five sessions, the greater part of which were +for ten days each, at about six hours a day.</p> +<p>I can speak a little more exactly in reference to the New +Testament Company. The time was shorter, and the changes in +the composition <!-- page 35--><a name="page35"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 35</span>of the Company were fewer. At +the end of the work a record was made out of the attendances of +the individual members <a name="citation35"></a><a +href="#footnote35" class="citation">[35]</a>, from which it was +easy to arrive at the average attendance, which for the whole +time was found to be as much as sixteen each day. The +number of sessions was 101 of four days each, and one of three +days, making a total of 407 days in all. More than 1,200 +days were thus devoted to the work of the revision of the +Authorised Versions of both Testaments. The first revision, +in the case of the New Testament lasted about six years; the +second, two years and a half. The remaining two years were +spent in the consideration of <!-- page 36--><a +name="page36"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 36</span>various +details and reserved questions, and especially the consideration +of the suggestions, on our second revision, of the American +Revisers, of whose work and connexion with the English Revisers +it will now be convenient to speak.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>The idea of a connexion with America in the great work of +revision was nearly as early as the movements in Convocation of +which an account has been given. It appears that, in the +session of Convocation in July, 1870, it was moved in the Lower +House by Lord Alwyne Compton (afterwards and now Bishop of Ely) +that the committee of Convocation should be instructed to invite +the co-operation of some American divines. This was at once +agreed to by both Houses, and measures were taken to open +communications with America. The correspondence was opened +by the acting Chairman of the New Testament Company (the present +writer) in a letter to Dr. Angus (dated July 20, 1870 <a +name="citation36"></a><a href="#footnote36" +class="citation">[36]</a>) who was about to visit <!-- page +37--><a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 37</span>the +United States, empowering him to prepare the way for definite +action on the part of American scholars and divines. This +he did in a letter (“Historical Account,” p. 31) sent +round to American scholars, and especially by communication with +Dr. Philip Schaff of the Bible House at New York, who, from the +first, had taken the deepest interest in the movement. This +active and enterprising scholar at once took up the matter, and +operated so successfully that, as he himself tells us in his +valuable and accurate “Companion to the Greek Testament and +the English Version” (New York, 1883), a committee of about +thirty members was formally organized Dec. 7, 1871, and entered +upon active work on Oct. 4, 1872, after the first revision of the +Synoptical Gospels had been forwarded by the New Testament +Company.</p> +<p>Our Old Testament Company was no less active and +co-operative. As they tell us in <!-- page 38--><a +name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 38</span>the Preface +prefixed to their revision, “the first revision of the +several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the +consideration of the American Revisers, and, except in the case +of the Pentateuch (which had been twice gone through prior to +co-operation) the English Company had the benefit of their +criticisms and suggestions before they proceeded to the second +revision. The second revision was in like manner forwarded +to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Revisers were +in the hands of the English Company at their final +review.” Both our English Companies bear hearty +testimony to the value derived from the co-operation. In +the case of the New Testament Company, the “care, +vigilance, and accuracy” which marked the work of their +American brethren is distinctly specified.</p> +<p>But little more need be said of the American Companies. +They were soon fully organized, and, so far as can be judged by +the results of their work, carefully and judiciously +chosen. The Old Testament Company consisted of fifteen +members, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, being Chairman: the +New Testament Committee consisted of sixteen members, three of +those who had at first accepted <!-- page 39--><a +name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 39</span>having been +obliged, from ill-health and stress of local duties, to +resign. Dr. Woolsey, Ex-President of Yale College, was +Chairman, and Bishop Lee, of the Diocese of Delaware, one of the +most faithful and valuable participators in the work, a member of +the Company. Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred +Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, was also +a member, and was President of the whole undertaking, Dr. George +Day of Yale College, a member of the Old Testament Company, being +the general secretary. The two Companies met every month +(except July and August) in two rooms in the Bible House, New +York, but without any connexion with the Bible Society, which, as +in England, could only circulate the Authorised Version.</p> +<p>The American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included +representatives of nine different denominations, viz. +Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, +Methodists and, to the extent of one member, Lutherans, +Unitarians, and Society of Friends. The Episcopal Church of +America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the request +that they would take part in the revision: this was +declined. The American Church however, <!-- page 40--><a +name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 40</span>as we have +already shown, was not wholly unrepresented in the work. +The whole Committee was obviously much more mixed than the +English Committee; but it must not be forgotten that though the +English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, and +Episcopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly +one-third of the two Companies were not members of the Church of +England. If we assume that each Company consisted at any +given time of twenty-five members, which, as we have seen, would +be approximately correct, the non-Episcopal members will be found +to have been not less than sixteen, viz. seven Presbyterians, +four Independents or Congregationalists, two Baptists, two +Wesleyans, and one Unitarian. Be this however as it may, it +is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God +the Holy Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the +work both here and in America. Here, as is well known, this +was the case; and in America, to quote one only out of many +similar witnesses, one who was himself a reviser, and the only +pastor in the Company (the Old Testament Company), thus gives his +experience, “Never, even once, did the <i>odium +theologicum</i> appear. Nothing was <!-- page 41--><a +name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 41</span>said at any +time that required retraction or apology <a +name="citation41"></a><a href="#footnote41" +class="citation">[41]</a>.”</p> +<p>This brief notice of our American brethren may close with one +further comment. Their work began, like ours, with reliance +on financial aid from the many who would be sure to be interested +in such an important and long-desired work. Help in our +case was at once readily proffered, but very soon was found not +to be necessary, owing to our disposal of copyright to the +Presses of the two Universities. With the American Revisers +it was otherwise. During the whole twelve years all the +necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and other +accessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed +by liberal donors from among the friends of biblical +revision. There remained, however, a grave +difficulty. It was plainly impossible that such +distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companies +could simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent +over to them without being recognized as fellow revisers in the +full sense of the words. How, however, formally to <!-- +page 42--><a name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +42</span>establish this parity of position was found to be very +difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, who had trade +rights which had properly to be guarded. The result was +much friendly negotiation for several months, but without any +definite adjustment <a name="citation42a"></a><a +href="#footnote42a" class="citation">[42a]</a>. At last, by +the wise and conciliatory action of the Presses an agreement was +arrived at in August, 1877 <a name="citation42b"></a><a +href="#footnote42b" class="citation">[42b]</a>, by which we on +this side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the +various stages of our work to our American brethren and carefully +to consider all their suggestions, but also to sanction the +publication in every copy of the revision of a list of all the +important passages, in regard of text and renderings, upon which +the English and American Revisers could not finally agree. +The American Revisers on their part undertook not to publish any +edition of their own for fourteen years.</p> +<p>The fourteen years have now passed away, <!-- page 43--><a +name="page43"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 43</span>but prior to +the expiration of the time the long-needed marginal references +were completed, and in September, 1898, were attached to the +pages of all the larger English copies of the Revised Version of +the Holy Scripture, with a short account of the sources from +which they were derived, and of the circumstances of their +delayed publication. As they were somewhat closely +connected with the labours of two of the members of the New +Testament Company, and had received the general approval of that +Company, I had real pleasure in presenting to both Houses of +Convocation on Feb. 10, 1899, the completed body of references, +and, in them, the very last portion of every part of the work of +the Company with which I had so long been connected.</p> +<p>The appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it +enabled the Universities to acquire copyright for any of the +editions <i>with these references</i> which they might publish, +or cause to be published in America. The University Press +of Oxford has, I know, acted on this right, but whether in +conjunction with the Cambridge University Press or independently +I am not able to say. The right at any rate remains, and in +the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may +<!-- page 44--><a name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +44</span>now suppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of +altered editions of the revision, which from time to time might +be brought forward by irresponsible publishers <a +name="citation44"></a><a href="#footnote44" +class="citation">[44]</a>.</p> +<p><!-- page 45--><a name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +45</span>One subject still remains to be noticed in this portion +of my address which cannot be passed over—the revision of +the Apocrypha. This the English revisers were pledged to +the University Presses to complete, before our connexion with +them could be rightfully concluded. This revision, as we +know, has been completed, though perhaps not in a manner that can +be considered as completely satisfactory, owing to the want of a +co-ordinating authority. The arrangement, of which a full +and clear account will be found in the preface to the published +volume, was briefly as follows. On March 21, 1879, as the +New Testament Company was fast approaching the completion of its +labours, it was agreed that the Company should be divided into +three portions, each consisting of eight members, to which the +names of the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Companies were to +be respectively assigned. The portion of the work that each +of the three Companies was to take was settled by lot. To +the London Company, of which I was a member, <!-- page 46--><a +name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 46</span>the book of +Ecclesiasticus was assigned; to the Westminster Company, the +first book of Maccabees, and subsequently the books Tobit and +Judith; and to the Cambridge Company, the second book of +Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.</p> +<p>On the completion of their work, the Old Testament Company +assigned to a special committee chosen out of their number the +remaining books of the Apocrypha, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, the +remainder of Esther, Baruch, Song of the Three Children, Susanna, +Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of Manasses.</p> +<p>It was agreed that each Company and the above-named committee +should go through their work twice, but without the two-thirds +condition, and that each body should send its work when completed +round to the rest. The times, however, at which the +portions were completed were by no means, even approximately, the +same. The London Company completed its work in May, +1883. The Westminster Company finished the first book of +Maccabees in November, 1881, and the books of Tobit and Judith in +October, 1882. The Cambridge Company completed its revision +of the second book of Maccabees in December, 1889, and of the +Book of Wisdom, which underwent <!-- page 47--><a +name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 47</span>three +revisions, in November, 1891. The revision of the remaining +books, undertaken by the Old Testament Company, does not seem to +have been completed till even two or three years later. +This interval of ten or twelve years involved in some of the +books, especially in reference to Ecclesiasticus, the clear +necessity for further revision. This compelled me, with the +help of my valued friend Dr. Moulton, to go over the work of my +former Company on my own responsibility, my coadjutors in the +work having been either called away by death or too seriously ill +to help me.</p> +<p>It was thus with some sense of relief that, on the request of +those connected with the publication of the volume, I presented +the Revised Version of the Apocrypha to the two Houses of +Convocation on February 12, 1896.</p> +<p>The rise and progress of the desire for a revision of the +Authorised Version of Holy Scripture has now been set forth as +fully as the limits of these Addresses permit. What now +remains to be specified is what may be called the internal +history of this Revision, or, in other words, the nature and +procedure of the work, with such concluding comments as the +circumstances of the present may appear to suggest.</p> +<h2><!-- page 48--><a name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +48</span>ADDRESS III.<br /> +<span class="smcap">Hebrew and Greek Text</span>.</h2> +<p>We now pass from what may be called the outward history of the +Revision to the inward nature and character of the work of the +Revisers, and may naturally divide that work into two +portions—their labours as regards the original text, and +their labours in regard of rendering and translation.</p> +<p>I. First, then, as regards the original text of the Old +Testament.</p> +<p>Here the work of the Old Testament Company was very slight as +compared with that of the New Testament Company. The latter +Company had, almost in every other verse, to settle upon a +text—often involving much that was doubtful and +debatable—before they proceeded to the further work of +translating. The Old Testament Company, on the contrary, +had ready to hand a <i>textus receptus</i> which really deserved +the title, and on which, in their preface, they write as follows: +“The received, or, as it is commonly called, the Massoretic +<!-- page 49--><a name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +49</span>text of the Old Testament Scriptures has come down to us +in manuscripts which are of no very great antiquity, and which +all belong to the same family or recension. That other +recensions were at one time in existence is probable from the +variations in the Ancient Versions, the oldest of which, namely, +the Greek or Septuagint, was made, at least in part, some two +centuries before the Christian era. But as the date of +knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to justify any +attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority +of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to +adopt the Massoretic text as the basis of their work, and to +depart from it, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in +exceptional cases.”</p> +<p>That in this decision the Revisers had exercised the sound +judgement which marks every part of their work cannot possibly be +doubted by any competent reader. The Massoretic text has a +long and interesting history. Its name is derived from a +word, Massora (tradition), that reminds us of the accumulated +traditions and criticisms relating to numerous passages of the +text, and of the manner in which it was to be read, all which +were finally committed to writing, and the ultimate result of +which <!-- page 50--><a name="page50"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 50</span>is the text of which we have been +speaking. That the formation of the written Massora was a +work of time seems a probable and reasonable supposition. A +very competent writer <a name="citation50"></a><a +href="#footnote50" class="citation">[50]</a> tells us that this +formation may have extended from the sixth or seventh to the +tenth or eleventh century. From the end of this Massoretic +period onward the same writer tells us that the Massora became +the great authority by which the text given in all the Jewish +manuscripts was settled. All our manuscripts, in a word, +are Massoretic. Any that were not so were not used, and +allowed to perish, or, as it has been thought, were destroyed as +not being in strict accordance with the recognized +standards. Whether we have sustained any real critical loss +by the disappearance of the rejected manuscripts it is impossible +to say. The fact only remains that we have no manuscript of +any portion of the Old Testament certainly known to be of a date +prior to <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> 916. The Massora, +it may be mentioned, appears in two forms—the <i>Massora +parva</i> and the <i>Massora magna</i>. The former contains +the really valuable portion of the great work, viz., the +variation technically named K’ri (<i>read</i>), and placed +<!-- page 51--><a name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +51</span>in the margin of the Hebrew Bibles. This was to be +substituted for the corresponding portion in the text technically +named C’thib (<i>written</i>), and was regarded by the +Massoretes themselves as the true reading. The <i>Massora +magna</i> contained the above, and other matter deemed to be of +importance in reference to the interpretation of the text.</p> +<p>The Revisers inform us that they have generally, though not +uniformly, rendered the C’thib in the text, and left the +K’ri in the margin, with the introductory note, “Or, +according to another reading,” or, “Another reading +is.” When they adopted the K’ri in the text of +their rendering, they placed the C’thib in the margin if it +represented a variation of importance.</p> +<p>These things, and others specified in the preface, should be +carefully attended to by the reader as enabling him to +distinguish between the different characters of the alternative +renderings as specified in the margin. Those due to the +Massoretes, or, in other words, the K’ris, will naturally +deserve attention from their antiquity. They are not, +however, when estimated with reference to the whole of the sacred +volume, very numerous. In the earliest printed bible they +were 1,171 in number, but <!-- page 52--><a +name="page52"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 52</span>this is +generally considered erroneous in excess, 900 being probably much +nearer the true estimate.</p> +<p>We cannot leave the subject of the Hebrew text without some +reference to the emendation of it suggested by the Ancient +Versions. But little, I believe, of a systematic character +has, as yet, been accomplished. The Revisers mention that +they have been obliged, in some few cases of extreme difficulty, +to depart from the Massoretic text and adopt a reading from the +Ancient Versions. I regret to observe that it is stated by +one of those connected with the forthcoming American revision of +the Old Testament version that in nearly one hundred cases the +marginal references to the Ancient Versions will be +omitted. Reasons are given, but these could hardly have +escaped the knowledge and observation of the learned men by whom +the references were inserted. The Revisers also mention +that where the Versions appeared to supply a very probable, +though not so absolutely necessary, correction as displacement of +the Massoretic text, they have still felt it proper to place the +reading in the margin.</p> +<p>This recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient +Versions by the Revisers, though <!-- page 53--><a +name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 53</span>obviously in +only a limited number of cases, seems to indicate the great good +that may be expected from a more complete and systematic use of +these ancient authorities in reference to the current text of the +Old Testament. At present the texts implied in them have, I +believe, never yet been so closely analysed as to enable us to +form any just estimate of their real critical value. They +have been used by editors, as in the case of Houbigant, but only +in a limited and partial manner. Lists, I believe, are +accessible of all the more important readings suggested or +implied by the Versions; but what is needed is far more than +this. In the first place we require much more trustworthy +texts of the Versions themselves than are at present at our +disposal. In the case of the Septuagint we may very shortly +look forward to a thoroughly revised text; and a similar remark +may probably be made in reference to the Vulgate, but I am not +aware that much has been done in the case of the Syriac <a +name="citation53"></a><a href="#footnote53" +class="citation">[53]</a>, and of other versions to which +reference would have to be made in any great <!-- page 54--><a +name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 54</span>critical +attempt, such as a revision of the <i>textus receptus</i> of the +Old Testament.</p> +<p>If, however, a first need is trustworthy editions of the +Versions, a second need appears to be a fuller knowledge of the +Hebrew material, late in regard of antiquity though it may be, +than was, at any rate, available till very recently. The +new edition of the text of the Hebrew Bible by Dr. Ginsburg, with +its learned and voluminous introduction, may, and probably does, +supply this fuller knowledge; but as in regard of these matters I +can speak only as a novice, I can only reproduce the statement +commonly made by those who have a right to speak on such +subjects, that the collation of the Hebrew manuscripts that we +already possess has been far from complete. There appears +to have been the feeling that they all lead up to the Massoretic +text, and that any particular variations from it need not be +treated over-seriously; and yet surely we must regard it as +possible that some of these negligible variations might concur +with, and by their concurrence add weight to, readings already +rendered probable by the suggestive testimony of the Ancient +Versions. It may be right for me to add that the whole +question was raised in 1886 by <!-- page 55--><a +name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 55</span>Dr. Green and +Dr. Schaff in a circular letter addressed to distinguished +Hebrews in Germany and elsewhere. The answers are returned +in German <a name="citation55"></a><a href="#footnote55" +class="citation">[55]</a>, and are translated. They are +most of them interesting, though not very encouraging. The +best of them seems to be the answer of Professor Strack, of +Berlin.</p> +<p>But here I must pause. The use made by the Revisers of +these ancient documents has called out the foregoing comments, +and has awakened the hope, which I now venture to express, that +the critical use of the Versions may be expanded, and form a part +of that systematic revision of the text of the Old Testament +which will not improbably form part of the critical labours of +the present century.</p> +<p>II. We may now turn to the New Testament, and to the +revision of the <i>textus receptus</i> of the New Testament which +our rules necessitated, and which formed a very important and, it +may be added, a very anxious part of our revision.</p> +<p>And here, at the very outset, one general observation is +absolutely necessary.</p> +<p><!-- page 56--><a name="page56"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +56</span>It is very commonly said, and I fear believed by many to +be true, that the text adopted by the Revisers and afterwards +published (in different forms) by the two University Presses, +hardly differs at all from the afterwards published text of the +two distinguished scholars and critics, one of whom was called +from us a few years ago, and the other of whom has, to our great +sorrow, only recently left us. I allude, of course, to the +Greek Testament, now of world-wide reputation, of Westcott and +Hort. What has been often asserted, and is still repeated, +is this, that the text had been in print for some time before it +was finally published, and was in the hands of the Revisers +almost, if not quite, from the very first. It was this, so +the statement runs, that they really worked upon, and this that +they assimilated.</p> +<p>Now this I unhesitatingly declare, as I shall subsequently be +able to prove, is contrary to the facts of the case. It is +perfectly true that our two eminent colleagues gave, I believe, +to each one of us, from time to time, little booklets of their +text as it then stood in print, but which we were always warned +were not considered by the editors themselves as final. +These portions of their text were given to us, <!-- page 57--><a +name="page57"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 57</span>not to win us +over to adopt it, but to enable us to see each proposed reading +in its continuity. How these booklets were used by the +members of the Company generally, I know not. I can only +speak for myself; but I cannot suppress the conviction that I was +acting unconsciously in the same manner as the great majority of +the Company. I only used the booklets for occasional +reference. In preparing the portion of the sacred volume on +which we were to be engaged in the next session of the Company, I +took due note of the readings as well as of the renderings, but I +formed my judgement independently on the evidence supplied to me +by the notes of the critical edition, whether that of Tischendorf +or Tregelles, which I then was in the habit of using. This +evidence was always fully stated to the Company, nearly always by +Dr. Scrivener, and it was upon the discussion of this evidence, +and not on the reading of any particular editor, on which the +decision of the Company was ultimately formed. We paid in +all cases great attention to the arguments of our two eminent +colleagues and our experienced colleague, Dr. Scrivener; but each +question of reading, as it arose, was settled by the votes of the +Company. The resulting text, as afterwards <!-- page +58--><a name="page58"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +58</span>published by the Oxford University Press, and edited by +Archdeacon Palmer, was thus the direct work of the Company, and +may be rightly designated, as it will be in these pages, as the +Revisers’ text.</p> +<p>It is of considerable importance that this should be borne in +mind; for, in the angry vituperation which was directed against +the Revisers’ text, it was tacitly assumed that this text +was practically identical with that of Westcott and Hort, and +that the difficulties which are to be found in this latter text +(and some there certainly are) are all to be found in the text of +the Revisers. How very far such an assumption is from the +true state of the case can easily be shown by a simple comparison +of one text with the other. Let us take an example. I +suppose there are very few who can entertain the slightest doubt +that in Acts xii. 35, St. Luke tells us that Barnabas and Saul +returned <i>from</i> Jerusalem after their mission was over, and +took with them (from Jerusalem) St. Mark. Now what is the +reading of Westcott and Hort?—“to Jerusalem” +with the Vatican Manuscript, and a fair amount of external +support. We then turn at once to the Revisers’ text +and find that <i>from</i> (εξ) is maintained, in spite +of the clever arguments <!-- page 59--><a name="page59"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 59</span>which, in this case, can be urged for +an intrinsically improbable reading, and, most likely, were urged +at the time, as I observe that the Revisers have allowed the +“to” to appear in a margin.</p> +<p>I regret that I have never gone through the somewhat laborious +process of minutely comparing the Revisers’ text with the +text of Westcott and Hort, but I cannot help thinking that the +example I have chosen is a typical one, and does show the sort of +relations between the two texts, when what a recent and competent +writer (Dr. Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin) considers to be +the difficulties and anomalies and apparent perversities in the +text of Westcott and Hort are compared with the decisions of the +Revisers <a name="citation59"></a><a href="#footnote59" +class="citation">[59]</a>. There are, I believe, only +sixty-four passages in the whole revision, in which the text of +the Revisers, when agreeing with the text of Westcott and Hort, +has not also the support of Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or +Tregelles.</p> +<p>I observe that the above-named writer expresses his +satisfaction that the Revised Version has not superseded the +Authorised Version in <!-- page 60--><a name="page60"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 60</span>our Churches <a +name="citation60a"></a><a href="#footnote60a" +class="citation">[60a]</a>, and that things which were read at +Rome in the second century may still be read in our own Churches +in the nineteenth century. This, perhaps, is a strong way +of expressing his aversion to the text of Westcott and Hort, but +it is not perfectly clear that the Revisers’ text has +“so closely” followed the authority of these two +eminent critics as to be open, on Dr. Salmon’s part, to the +same measure of aversion. Until more accurate evidence is +forthcoming that the Revisers have shown in their text the same +sort of studied disregard of Western variations as is plainly to +be recognized in the text of Westcott and Hort, I can only fall +back on my persuasion, as one who has put to the vote these +critical questions very many times, that systematic neglect of +Western authority cannot fairly be brought home to the +Revisers. It is much to be regretted then, that in the very +opening chapter of his interesting volume, Dr. Salmon roundly +states that Westcott and Hort exercised a “predominating +influence” on their colleagues in the revision on the +question of various readings <a name="citation60b"></a><a +href="#footnote60b" class="citation">[60b]</a>, and that +“more than half of their brother members of the Committee +had given no special attention to the subject.” Now, +<!-- page 61--><a name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +61</span>assuming that the word “Committee” has been +here accidentally used for the more usual term Company, I am +forced to say that both statements are really incorrect. I +was permitted by God’s mercy to be present at every meeting +of the Company except two, and I can distinctly say that I never +observed any indication of this predominating influence. We +knew well that our two eminent colleagues had devoted many years +of their lives to the great work on which they were engaged; and +we paid full deference to what they urged on each reading as it +came before us, but in the end we decided for ourselves. +For it must not be forgotten that we had an eminent colleague +(absent only eight times from our 407 meetings) who took a very +different view of the critical evidence to that of Westcott and +Hort, and never failed very fully, and often very persuasively, +to express it. I am of course alluding to my old friend Dr. +Scrivener. It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. +Hort and Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged +on either side was placed before the Company, and the Company +enabled to decide on a full knowledge of the critical facts and +reasonings in reference to the reading under consideration.</p> +<p><!-- page 62--><a name="page62"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +62</span>Now it is also not correct to say of the Company that +finally decided the question, that more than half “had +given no special attention to the subject.” If this +refers to the matter <i>subsequently</i> put forward by Dr. Hort +in the introductory volume to Westcott and Hort’s Greek +Testament, to the clever and instructive genealogical method, and +to the numberless applications of it that have given their Greek +Testament the pre-eminence it deservedly holds—if this be +the meaning of the Provost’s estimate of the critical +knowledge of the Company, I should not have taken any exception +to the words. But if “the subject” refers to +the general critical knowledge at the time when the Company came +together, then I must gently protest against an estimate of the +general critical capabilities of the Company that is, really and +truly, incorrect. All but three or four are now resting +with God, and among these twenty they were not few who had a good +and full knowledge of the New Testament textual criticism of the +generation that had just passed away. Among them were not +only the three experts whom I have mentioned, but editors of +portions of the New Testament such as Bishop Lightfoot and +others, principals of large <!-- page 63--><a +name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 63</span>educational +colleges both in England and Scotland, and scholars like Dean +Scott, who were known to take great interest in questions of +textual criticism. A few of these might almost be +considered as definitely experts, but all taken together +certainly made a very competent body to whose independent +judgement the settlement of difficult critical questions could be +safely committed.</p> +<p>And, as I venture to think, the text which has been +constructed from their decisions, their resultant text as it +might be called, will show that the Revisers’ text is an +independent text on which great reliance can be placed. It +is the text which I always use myself in my general reading of +the New Testament, and I deliberately regard it as one of the two +best texts of the New Testament at present extant; the other +being the cheap and convenient edition of Professor Nestle, +bearing the title “Novum Testamentum Græce, cum +apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis +collecto. Stuttgart, 1898.” This edition is +issued by the Würtemberg Bible Society, and will, as I hear, +not improbably be adopted by our own Bible Society as their Greek +Testament of the future.</p> +<p>The reason why I prefer these two texts <!-- page 64--><a +name="page64"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 64</span>for the +general reading of the sacred volume is this, that they both have +much in common with the text of Westcott and Hort, but are free +from those peculiarities and, I fear I must add, perversities, +which do here and there mark the text of that justly celebrated +edition. To Doctors Westcott and Hort all faithful students +of the New Testament owe a debt of lasting gratitude which it is +impossible to overestimate. Still, in the introductory +volume by Dr. Hort, assumptions have been made, and principles +laid down, which in several places have plainly affected the +text, and led to the maintenance of readings which, to many +minds, it will seem really impossible to accept. An +instance has been given above on page 58, and this is by no means +a solitary instance.</p> +<p>Having now shown fairly, I hope, and clearly the thoroughly +independent character of the text which I have called the +Revisers’ text, I will pass onward, and show the careful +manner in which it was constructed, and the circumstances under +which we have it in the continuous form in which it has been +published by the Press of the University of Oxford.</p> +<p>To do this, it will be necessary to refer <!-- page 65--><a +name="page65"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 65</span>to the rule +under which we were directed to carry out this portion of our +responsible work. We had two things to do—to revise +the Authorised Version, and also to revise under certain +specified limitations the Greek text from which the Authorised +Version was made; or, in other words, the fifth edition of +Beza’s Greek Testament, published in the year 1698. +The rule under which this second portion of our work was to be +performed was as follows: “That the text to be adopted be +that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and [let +this be noted] that when the text so adopted differs from that +from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be +indicated in the margin.” Such was the rule in regard +of the text, and such was the instruction as to the mode of +notifying any alterations that it might have been found necessary +to make.</p> +<p>Let us deal first with the direction as to notifying the +alterations. Now as it was soon found practically +impossible to place all the alterations in a margin which would +certainly be needed for alternative renderings, and for such +matters as usually appear in a margin, we left the University +Presses to publish, in such manner as they might think <!-- page +66--><a name="page66"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 66</span>most +convenient, the deviations from the Greek text presumed to +underlie the Authorised Version. The Cambridge University +Press entrusted to Dr. Scrivener the publication of the Received +Text with the alterations of the Revisers placed at the foot of +the page. The Oxford University Press adopted the more +convenient method of letting the alterations form part of the +continuous text (the readings they displaced being at the foot of +the page), and entrusted the editing of the volume to Archdeacon +Palmer (one of our Company) who, as we know, performed the duty +with great care and accuracy. Hence the existence of what I +term throughout this address as the Revisers’ text.</p> +<p>We can now turn to the first part of the rule and describe in +general terms the mode of our procedure. It differs very +slightly from the mode described in the preface of the Revisers +of the Old Testament. The verse on which we were engaged +was read by the Chairman. The first question asked was, +whether there was any difference of reading in the Greek text +which required our consideration. If there was none, we +proceeded with the second part of our work, the consideration of +the rendering. If there was <!-- page 67--><a +name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 67</span>a reading in +the Greek text that demanded our consideration it was at once +discussed, and commonly in the following manner. Dr. +Scrivener stated briefly the authorities, whether manuscripts, +ancient versions, or patristic citations, of which details most +of us were already aware. If the alteration was one for +which the evidence was patently and decidedly preponderating, it +was at once adopted, and the work went onward. If, however, +it was a case where it was doubtful whether the evidence for the +alteration <i>was</i> thus decidedly preponderating, then a +discussion, often long, interesting, and instructive, +followed. Dr. Hort, if present (and he was seldom absent; +only forty-five times out of the 407 meetings) always took part, +and finally the vote was taken, and the suggested alteration +either adopted or rejected. If adopted, due note was taken +by the secretary, and, if it was thought a case for a margin, the +competing reading was therein specified. If there was a +plain difficulty at coming to a decision, and the passage was one +of real importance, the decision was not uncommonly postponed to +a subsequent meeting, and notice duly given to all the members of +the Company. And so the great work went on to the end <!-- +page 68--><a name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +68</span>of the first revision; the members of the Company +acquiring more and more knowledge and experience, and their +decisions becoming more and more judicial and trustworthy.</p> +<p>Few, I think, on reading this simple and truthful description, +could fail to place some confidence in results thus patiently and +laboriously arrived at. Few, I think, could forbear a smile +when they call to mind the passionate vituperation which at first +was lavished on the critical efforts of the Revisers of the text +that bears the scarcely correct name of the <i>textus ab omnibus +receptus</i>.</p> +<p>But what I have specified was only the first part of our +responsible work. By the memoranda of agreement between the +English Companies and the American Committee, it had to be +communicated to the American Company of the Revisers of the +Authorised Version of the New Testament, among whom were some +whose names were well and honorably known in connexion with +textual criticism. Our work, with the American criticisms +and suggestions, had then to undergo the second revision. +The greater part of the decisions relating to the text that were +arrived at in the first revision were accepted as final; but many +were reopened at the <!-- page 69--><a name="page69"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 69</span>second revision, and the critical +experience of the Company, necessarily improved as it had been by +the first revision, finally tested by the two-thirds majority the +reopened decisions which at the first revision had been carried +by simple majorities. The results of this second revision +were then, in accordance with the agreement, communicated to the +American Company; but, in the sequel, as will be seen in the +lists of the final differences between ourselves and the American +Company, the critical differences were but few, and, so far as I +can remember, of no serious importance.</p> +<p>The critical labours of the Revisers did not however terminate +with the second revision. The cases were many where the +evidence for the readings either adopted or retained in the text +was only slightly stronger than that of readings which were in +competition with it. Of this it was obviously necessary +that some final intimation should be given to the reader, as the +subsequent discovery of additional evidence might be held by a +competent critic to invalidate the right of the adopted reading +to hold its place in the text. This intimation could only +be given by a final marginal note, for which, as we know, by the +arrangement of <!-- page 70--><a name="page70"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 70</span>the University Presses (see p. 66), +our page was now available.</p> +<p>These notes were objected to by one of our critics as quite +unprecedented additions; but it will be remembered that there are +such notes in the margin of the Authorised Version, though of +course few in number (thirty-five, according to Dr. Scrivener), +textual criticism in 1611 being only in its infancy.</p> +<p>The necessity for the insertion of such notes was clearly +shown in a pamphlet that appeared shortly after the publication +of the Revised Version, and was written by two members of the +Company. The three cases in which these notes appeared +certainly to be required were thus stated by the two writers: +“First, when the text which seemed to underlie the +Authorised Version was condemned by a decided preponderance of +evidence, but yet was ancient in its character, and belonged to +an early line of transmission. Secondly, when there were +such clear tokens of corruption in the reading on which the +Authorised Version was based, or such a consent of authority +against it, that no one could seriously argue for its retention, +but it was not equally clear which of the other competing +readings had the best claim to occupy the <!-- page 71--><a +name="page71"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 71</span>vacant +place. In such a case there was not, in truth, decidedly +preponderant evidence, except against the text of Beza, and some +notice of this fact seemed to be required by critical +equity. The third and last case was when the text which, as +represented in the Authorised Version, was retained because the +competing reading had not decidedly preponderant evidence (though +the balance of evidence was in its favour), and so could not +under the rule be admitted. In such a case again critical +equity required a notice of the facts in the margin.”</p> +<p>This quotation, I may remark in passing, is not only useful in +explaining when and where marginal notes were demonstrably +needed, but also in showing how carefully such questions were +considered, and how conscientiously the rules were observed under +which our work was to be carried out.</p> +<p>Such were the textual labours of the Company. They were +based on, and were the results of, the critical knowledge that +had been slowly acquired during the 115 years that separated the +early suggestions of Bentley from the pioneer text of Lachmann in +1831; and, in another generation, had become expanded and matured +in the later texts of <!-- page 72--><a name="page72"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 72</span>Tischendorf, and still more so in the +trustworthy and consistent text of our countryman +Tregelles. The labours of these three editors were well +known to the greater part of the Revisers and generally known to +all; and it was on these labours, and on the critical methods +adopted by these great editors, that our own text was principally +formed. We of course owed much to the long labours of our +two eminent colleagues, Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort. Some of +us know generally the principles on which they had based their +yet unpublished text, and were to some extent aware of the manner +in which they had grouped their critical authorities, and of the +genealogical method, which, under their expansion of it, has +secured for their text the widespread acceptance it has met with +both at home and abroad.</p> +<p>Of these things some of us had a competent knowledge, but the +majority had no special knowledge of the genealogical +method. They did know the facts on which it was +based—the ascertained trustworthiness of the ancient +authorities as compared with the later uncial, and the cursive +manuscripts, the general characteristics of these ancient +authorities, the alliances that were to be traced between <!-- +page 73--><a name="page73"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +73</span>some of them, and the countries with which they were +particularly connected. This the majority knew generally as +a part of the largely increased knowledge which the preceding +forty or fifty years, and the labours of Lachmann, Tischendorf, +and (so far as he had then published) Tregelles, had placed at +the disposal of students of the Greek Testament. It was on +this general knowledge, and not on any portions of a partly +printed text, that the decisions of the Company were based; these +decisions, however, by the very nature of the case and the use of +common authorities, were constantly in accordance with the texts +of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and so with the +subsequently printed text of Westcott and Hort.</p> +<p>Such a text, thus independently formed, and yet thus in +harmony with the results of the most tested critical researches +of our times, has surely great claims on our unreserved +acceptance, and does justify us in strongly pleading that a +version of such a text, if faithfully executed, should, for the +very truth’s sake, be publicly read in our Churches.</p> +<p>That the Revised Version has been faithfully executed, will I +hope be shown fully <!-- page 74--><a name="page74"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 74</span>and clearly in the succeeding +chapter. For the present my care has been to show that the +text of which it is a version, and which I have called the +Revisers’ Text because it underlies their revision, and, as +such, has been published by the Oxford University Press, is in my +judgement the best balanced text that has appeared in this +country. I have mentioned with it (p. 63) the closely +similar text of the well-known Professor Nestle, but as I have +not gone through the laborious task of comparing the text, verse +by verse, with that of the Revisers, I speak only in reference to +our own country. I have compared the two texts in several +crucial and important passages—such for example as St. John +i. 18—and have found them identical. Bishop Westcott, +I know, a short time before his lamented death, expressed to the +Committee of the Bible Society his distinct approval of their +adopting for future copies of the Society’s Greek Testament +Professor Nestle’s text, as published by the +Würtemberg Bible Society.</p> +<p>I have now, I trust, fairly shown the independence of the +Revisers’ Text, and have, not without reason, complained of +my friend Provost Salmon’s estimate of its dependence <!-- +page 75--><a name="page75"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +75</span>on the text and earnestly exerted influence of Dr. Hort +and Dr. Westcott. Of course, as I have shown, there is, and +must be, much that is identical in the two texts; but, to fall +back on statistics, there are, I believe, more than two hundred +places in which the two texts differ, and in nearly all of +them—if I may venture to express my own personal +opinion—the reading of the Revisers’ Text is +critically to be preferred. Most of these two hundred +places seem to be precisely places in which the principles +adopted by Westcott and Hort need some corrective +modifications. Greatly as I reverence the unwearied +patience, the exhaustive research, and the critical sagacity of +these two eminent, and now lamented, members of our former +Company, I yet cannot resist the conviction that Dr. Salmon in +his interesting Criticism of the Text of the New Testament has +successfully indicated three or more particulars which must cause +some arrest in our final judgement on the text of Westcott and +Hort.</p> +<p>In the first case it cannot be denied that, in the +introductory volume, Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency +to elevate probable hypotheses into the realm of established +facts. Dr. Salmon specifies one, and that a very +far-reaching <!-- page 76--><a name="page76"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 76</span>instance, in which, in the debatable +question whether there really was an authoritative revision of +the so-called Syrian text at about <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span> 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian +revision as a <i>vera causa</i>, as opposed to a hypothetical +possibility. This tendency in a subject so complicated as +that of textual criticism must be taken note of by the student, +and must introduce some element of hesitation in the acceptance +of confidently expressed decisions when the subject-matter may +still be very plainly debatable.</p> +<p>In the second place, in the really important matter of the +nomenclature of the ancient types of text which, since the days +of Griesbach, and to some extent before him, have been recognized +by all critical scholars, it does not seem possible to accept the +titles of the fourfold division of these families of manuscripts +which have been adopted by Westcott and Hort. Griesbach, as +is well known, adopted the terms Western, Alexandrian, and +Constantinopolitan, for which there is much to be said. +Westcott and Hort recognize four groups. To the first and +considerably the largest they give the title of Syrian, answering +to some extent to the Constantinopolitan of Griesbach; to the +<!-- page 77--><a name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +77</span>second they continue the title of Western; to the third +they give the title of Alexandrian, though of a numerically more +restricted character than the Alexandrian of Griesbach; to the +fourth, an exceedingly small group, apparently consisting of +practically not more than two members, they give the title of +Neutral, as being free alike from Syrian, Western, and +Alexandrian characteristics. On this Neutral family or +group Westcott and Hort lay the greatest critical stress, and in +it they place the greatest reliance. Such is their +distribution, and such the names they give to the families into +which manuscripts are to be divided and grouped.</p> +<p>The objections to this arrangement and to this nomenclature +are, as Dr. Salmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and +serious. In the first place, the title Syrian, though Dr. +Salmon allows it to pass, is very misleading, especially to the +student. It is liable to be confounded with the term +Syriac, with which it has not and is not intended to have any +special connexion, and it fails to convey the amplitude of the +family it designates. If it is to be retained at all, it +must be with the prefix suggested by Dr. Schaff—the group +being styled as the Graeco-Syrian. But this <!-- page +78--><a name="page78"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 78</span>is of +slight moment when compared with the serious objections to the +term Neutral, as this term certainly tends in practice to give to +two manuscripts or even, in some cases, to one of them (the Codex +Vaticanus), a preponderating supremacy which cannot be properly +conceded when authorities of a high character are found to be +ranged on the other side. There are also other grave +objections which are convincingly put forward by Dr. Salmon in +the chapter he has devoted to the subject of the nomenclature of +the two editors.</p> +<p>We shall be wise therefore if we cancel the term Neutral and +use the term Older Alexandrian, as distinguished from the later +Alexandrian, and so fall back on the threefold division of +Alexandrian (earlier and later), Graeco-Syrian, and Western, +though for this last-mentioned term a more expressive designation +may perhaps hereafter be found.</p> +<p>The third drawback to the unqualified acceptance of the text +of Westcott and Hort is their continuous and studied disregard of +Western authorities; and this, notwithstanding that among these +authorities are included the singular and not unfrequently +suggestive Codex Bezae—of which Dr. Blass has lately <!-- +page 79--><a name="page79"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +79</span>made so remarkable a use—the Old Latin Version, +the Graeco-Latin manuscripts, and, to some extent, the Old Syriac +Version, all of them authorities to which the designation of +Western is commonly applied. To this grave drawback Dr. +Salmon has devoted a chapter to which the attention of the +student may very profitably be directed. Here I cannot +enter into details, but of this I am persuaded, that if there +should be any fresh discovery of textual authorities, it is by no +means unlikely that they may be of a Western character, and if +so, that many decisions in the text of Westcott and Hort will +have to be modified by some editor of the future. At any +rate, taking the critical evidence as now we find it, we cannot +but feel that Dr. Salmon has made out his case, and that in the +edition of which now we are speaking there has been an undue, and +even a contemptuous, disregard of Western authorities.</p> +<p>Here I must close this address, yet not without expressing the +hope that I may have induced some of you, my Reverend Brethren, +to look into these things for yourselves. Do not be +deterred by the thought that to do so you must read widely and +consult many <!-- page 80--><a name="page80"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 80</span>authorities. This is really not +necessary for the acquiring of an intelligent interest in the +text of the Greek Testament. With a good edition (with +appended critical authorities), whether that of Tischendorf or of +Tregelles, and with guidance such as that which you will find in +the compendious <i>Companion to the Greek Testament</i> of Dr. +Schaff, you will be able to begin, and when you have seriously +begun, you will not be, I am persuaded, very likely to leave +off.</p> +<h2><!-- page 81--><a name="page81"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +81</span>ADDRESS IV<br /> +<span class="smcap">Nature of the Renderings</span></h2> +<p>From the text we now turn to the renderings, and to the +general principles that were followed, both in the Old and in the +New Testament. The revision of the English text was in each +case subject to the same general rule, viz. “To introduce +as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorised +Version consistently with faithfulness”; but, owing to the +great difference between the two languages, the Hebrew and the +Greek, the application of the rule was necessarily different, and +the results not easily comparable the one with the other.</p> +<p>It will be best then to consider the renderings in the two +Testaments separately, and to form the best estimate we can of +their character and of their subordination to the general rule, +with due regard to the widely different nature of the structure +and grammatical principles of the two languages through which +<!-- page 82--><a name="page82"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +82</span>God has been pleased to reveal His truth to the children +of men.</p> +<p>I. We begin then with the Revised Version of the Old +Testament, and naturally turn for general guidance to the Preface +of those who were engaged in the long, diversified, and +responsible work. Their general principles as to departures +from the Authorised Version would appear to be included in the +following clearly-specified particulars. They departed from +the Authorised Version (<i>a</i>) where they did not agree with +it as to the meaning or construction of a word or sentence; +(<i>b</i>) where it was necessary, for the sake of uniformity, to +render such parallel passages as were identical in Hebrew by the +same English words; (<i>c</i>) where the English of the +Authorised Version was liable to be misunderstood by reason of +its being archaic or obscure; (<i>d</i>) where the rendering of +an earlier English version seemed preferable; and (<i>e</i>) +where, by an apparently slight change, it was possible to bring +out more fully the meaning of a passage of which the translation +was substantially accurate.</p> +<p>These principles, which I have been careful to specify in the +exact words of the Revisers, will appear to every impartial +reader to be <!-- page 83--><a name="page83"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 83</span>fully in harmony with the principle +of faithfulness; and will be found—if an outsider may +presume to make a passing comment—to have been carried out +with pervasive consistency and uniformity.</p> +<p>The Revisers further notice certain particulars of which the +general reader should take full note, so much of the random +criticisms of the revised text (especially in the New Testament) +having been due to a complete disregard in each case of the +Preface, and of the reasons given for changes which long +experience had shown to be both reasonable and necessary.</p> +<p>The first particular is the important question of the +rendering of the word “<span +class="smcap">Jehovah</span>.” Here the Revisers have +thought it advisable to follow the usage of the Authorised +Version, and not to insert the word uniformly in place of +“<span class="smcap">Lord</span>” or “<span +class="smcap">God</span>,” which words when printed in +small capitals represent the words substituted by Jewish custom +for the ineffable Name according to the vowel points by which it +is distinguished. To this usage the Revisers have steadily +adhered with the exception of a very few passages in which the +introduction of a proper name seemed to be required. In +this grave matter, as we all probably know, the American Company +has expressed its dissent <!-- page 84--><a +name="page84"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 84</span>from the +decision of the English Company, and has adopted the proper name +wherever it occurs in the Hebrew text for “the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>” and “<span +class="smcap">God</span>.” Most English readers will +agree with our Revisers. It may indeed be said, now that we +can read the American text continuously, that there certainly are +many passages in which the proper name seems to come upon eye or +ear with a serious and appropriate force; still the reverence +with which we are accustomed to treat what the Revisers speak of +as “the ineffable Name” will lead most of us to +sacrifice the passages, where the blessed name may have an +impressive force, to the reverential uniformity of our Authorised +Version, and to the latent fear that frequent iteration might +derogate from the solemnity with which we instinctively clothe +the ever-blessed name of Almighty God.</p> +<p>The next particular relates to terms of natural history. +Here changes have only been made where it was certain that the +Authorised Version was incorrect, and highly probable that the +word substituted was right. Where doubt existed, the text +was left unchanged, but the alternative word was placed in the +margin. In regard of other terms, of which the old +rendering was certainly wrong, <!-- page 85--><a +name="page85"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 85</span>as in the +case of the Hebrew term <i>Ashêrah</i> (probably the wooden +symbol of a goddess), the Revisers have used the word, whether in +the singular or plural, as a proper name. In the case of +the Hebrew term “Sheôl” (corresponding to the +Greek term “Hades”), variously rendered in the +Authorised Version by the words “grave,” +“pit,” and “hell,” the Revisers have +adopted in the historical books the first or second words with a +marginal note, “Heb. <i>Sheol</i>,” but in the +poetical books they have reversed this arrangement. The +American Revisers, on the contrary, specify that in all cases +where the word occurs in the Hebrew text they place it unchanged +in the English text, and without any margin. The case is a +difficult one, but the English arrangement is to be preferred, as +the reader would not so plainly need a preliminary +explanation.</p> +<p>The last case that it here seems necessary to allude to is the +change everywhere of the words “the tabernacle of the +congregation” into “the tent of meeting,” as +the former words convey an entirely wrong sense. These and +the use of several other terms are carefully noted and explained +by the Revisers, and will, I hope, induce every careful reader of +their revision to make it his duty to study their <!-- page +86--><a name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +86</span>prefatory words. The almost unavoidable +differences between them and the American Revisers, as to our own +language, are alluded to by them in terms both friendly and wise, +and may be considered fully to express the sentiments of the New +Testament Company, by whom the subject is less precisely alluded +to.</p> +<p>In passing from the Preface to the great work which it +introduces, I feel the greatest difficulty, as a member of a +different Company, in making more than a few very general +comments. In fact, I should scarcely have ventured to do +even this, had I not met with a small but very instructive volume +on the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament +written by one of the American Revisers, and published at New +York some fifteen or sixteen years ago. The volume is +entitled—perhaps with excusable brevity—<i>A +Companion to the Revised Old Testament</i>. The writer was +Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch +Church of New York, from whose preface I learn that he was the +only pastor in the Company, the others being professors in +theological seminaries, and representing seven different +denominations and nine different institutions. The book is +written with great modesty, and as far as <!-- page 87--><a +name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 87</span>I can judge, +with a good working knowledge of Hebrew. The writer +disclaims in it the position of speaking in any degree for the +Company of which he was a member, but mentions that his +undertaking was approved of by his colleagues, and received the +assistance, more or less, of all of them. He was a member +of the Company during the last ten years of its labours.</p> +<p>I can recommend this useful volume to any student of the Old +Testament who is desirous to see a selected list of the changes +made by the Revisers in the Pentateuch, Historical Books, +Poetical Books, and Prophetical Books. These changes are +given in four chapters, and in most cases are accompanied by +explanatory comments, which from their tenor often seem to be +reminiscences of corporate discussion. I mention these +particulars as I am not aware of any similar book on the Old +Testament written by any one of the English Company. If +there is such a book, I do sincerely hope the writer will forgive +me for not having been so fortunate as to meet with it.</p> +<p>The remaining comments I shall venture to make on the +rendering of the Old Testament will rest on the general knowledge +I have acquired of this carefully-executed and conservative <!-- +page 88--><a name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +88</span>revision, and on some consideration of the many +illustrations which Dr. Chambers has selected in his interesting +manual. The impression that has long been left on my mind +by the serious reading of the Old Testament in the Revised +Version is that not nearly enough has been said of the value of +the changes that have been made, and of the strong argument they +furnish for the reading of the Revision in the public services of +the Church. Let any serious person read the Book of Job +with the two English versions in parallel columns, and form a +sober opinion on the comparison—his judgement I am +confident will be, that if the Revision of this Book be a fair +sample of the Revision generally, our congregations have a just +right to claim that the Revised Version of the Old Testament +should be publicly read in their churches. Ours is a +Bible-loving country, and the English Bible in its most correct +form can never be rightly withheld from our public +ministrations.</p> +<p>I shall now close this portion of the present Address with a +few comments on the four parts of the Revision to which I have +already alluded—the Pentateuch, and the Historical, +Poetical, and Prophetical Books of the Old Testament.</p> +<p><!-- page 89--><a name="page89"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +89</span>What the careful reader of Genesis will not fail to +observe is the number of passages in which comparatively small +alterations give a new light to details of the sacred narrative +which, in general reading, are commonly completely +overlooked. A new colouring, so to speak, is given to the +whole, and rectifications of prevailing conceptions not +unfrequently introduced, either in the text or, as often happens, +by means of the margin, where they could hardly have been +anticipated. The prophecy of Jacob as to the future of his +children (chap. xlix) will supply an instance. In the +character of Reuben few of us would understand more than general +unsteadiness and changefulness in purpose and in act, but a +glance at the margin will show that impulse and excitability were +plainly elements in his nature which led him into the grievous +and hateful sin for which his father deposed him from the +excellency of a first-born.</p> +<p>What has been said of the Book of Genesis is equally +applicable to the remainder of the Pentateuch. The object +throughout is elucidation, not simply correction of errors but +removal of obscurity, if not by changes introduced into the +printed text, yet certainly always by the aid of the margin; as, +for <!-- page 90--><a name="page90"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +90</span>example, in the somewhat difficult passage of Exodus +xvii. 16, where really, it would seem, that the margin might +rightly have had its place in the text. Sometimes the +correction of what might seem trivial error, as in Exodus xxxiv. +33, gives an intelligible view of the whole details of the +circumstance specified. Moses put on the veil after he had +ceased speaking with them. While he was speaking to them he +was speaking as God’s representative. In Numbers xi. +25 the correction of a mistranslation removes what might +otherwise lead to a very grave misconception, viz. that the gift +of prophecy was continuous in the case of the whole +elderhood. In the chapters relating to Balaam, +independently of the alterations that are made in the language of +his remarkable utterances, the mere fact of their being arranged +rhythmically could not fail to cause the public reader, almost +unconsciously, to change his tone of voice, and to make the +reading of the prophecy more distinct and impressive. Among +many useful changes in Deuteronomy one may certainly be noticed +(chap. xx. 19), in which the obscure and difficult clause in +regard of the tree in the neighbourhood of the besieged city is +made at any rate intelligible.</p> +<p><!-- page 91--><a name="page91"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +91</span>In the historical books attention may be particularly +called to the Song of Deborah and Barak, in which there are +several important and elucidatory corrections, and in which the +rhythmic arrangement will be felt to bear force and +impressiveness both to reader and to hearer. In the +remaining Books changes will be found fewer in number and less +striking; but occasionally, as for example in 1 Kings xx. 27, we +come across changes that startle us by their unlooked-for +character, but which, if correct, add a deeper degradation to the +outpoured blood of Ahab in the pool of Samaria.</p> +<p>Of the poetical Books, I have already alluded to the Book of +Job and to the high character of the Revision. The changes +in this noble poem are many, and were especially needed, for the +rendering of the Book of Job has always been felt to be one of +the weakest portions of the great work of the Revisers of +1611. Illustrations I am unable to give, in a cursory +notice like the present, but I may again press the +Revisers’ version of this deeply interesting Book on the +serious attention of every earnest student of the Old +Testament.</p> +<p>It is difficult to say much on the Revised Version of the Book +of Psalms, as Coverdale’s <!-- page 92--><a +name="page92"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 92</span>Version, as +we have it in our Prayer Book, so completely occupies the +foreground of memory and devotional interest, that I fear +comparatively few study the Bible Version or the careful and +conservative work of the Revisers. This Revision, however, +of the version of the Book of Psalms deserves more attention than +it appears to have received. Not only will the faithful +reader find in it the necessary corrections of the version of +1611, but clear guidance as to the meaning of the sometimes +utterly unintelligible renderings of the version of the Great +Bible which still holds its place in our Prayer Books. To +take two examples: let the reader look at the Authorised Version +and Prayer Book Version of Psalm lxviii. 16, and of lxxxiv. 5, 6, +and contrast with both the rendering of the Revised +Version. This last-mentioned rendering will be found, as I +have said, to correct the Authorised Version, and (especially in +the second passage) to remove what is unintelligible in the +Prayer Book version. It may thus be used by the Prayer Book +reader of the Psalms as a ready and easily accessible means of +arriving at the real meaning of the many ambiguities and +obscurities which long familiarity with the Prayer Book Version +has led him to pass over without <!-- page 93--><a +name="page93"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 93</span>any +particular notice. The revision of the Prayer Book Version +has been long felt to be a very real necessity. To read and +to hear read in the daily services of the Church what, in parts, +cannot be understood can never be spiritually good for reader or +hearer. And yet, such is the really devout conservatism of +the bulk of our congregations, that though a careful revision, +sympathetically executed, has been strongly urged by some of our +most earnest scholars and divines, it is more than doubtful +whether such a revision ever will be carried out. If this +be so, it only remains for us so to encourage, in our schools and +in our Bible classes, the efficient explanatory help of the +Revised Version. If this is steadily done, nearly all that +is at present obscure or unintelligible in the Prayer Book +Version will no longer remain so to the greater part of our +worshippers.</p> +<p>Of the remaining Poetical Books the revision of the Authorised +Version of the Song of Solomon must be specially noticed. +In the common version the dramatic element is almost entirely +lost, the paragraphs are imperfectly noted, and obscurities not a +few the inevitable consequence. In a large degree these +serious imperfections are removed, and <!-- page 94--><a +name="page94"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 94</span>the whole +tenor of this exquisite poem made clear to the general +reader. The margin will show the great care bestowed on the +poem by the Revisers; and the fewness and trifling nature of the +changes maintained by the American Company will also show, in a +confessedly difficult Book, the somewhat remarkable amount of the +agreement between the two Companies. On the Prophetical +Books I do not feel qualified to speak except in very general +terms; and for illustrations must refer the reader to the large +list of the corrected renderings, especially of the prophecy of +Isaiah, in the useful work of Dr. Chambers, who has devoted at +least eleven pages to the details of the Revisers’ work on +the Evangelist of the Old Covenant. The impression which +the consideration of these details leaves on the mind of the +reader will be, I am confident, the same as that which is I +believe felt by all professed Hebrew scholars who have examined +the version, viz. that it is not only faithful and thorough, but +often rises to a very high level of poetic utterance. Let +any one read aloud in the Revised Version the well-known passage, +chap. xiv. 12-23, already nobly rendered in the Old Version, and +ask himself if the seemingly slight and trivial <!-- page 95--><a +name="page95"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 95</span>changes have +not maintained this splendid utterance at a uniform height of +sustained and eloquent vigour.</p> +<p>In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the changes are less +striking and noticeable, not however from any diminished care in +the work of revision, but from the tenor of the prophecies being +less familiar to the general reader. Four pages of +instructive illustrations are supplied by Dr. Chambers in the +case of each of the two prophecies. The more noticeable +changes in Daniel and Hosea are also specified by Dr. Chambers, +but the remainder of the minor prophets, with perhaps the +exception of Habakkuk, are passed over with but little +illustrative notice. A very slight inspection however of +these difficult prophecies will certainly show two +things—first, that the Revisers of 1611 did their work in +this portion of Holy Scripture less successfully than elsewhere; +secondly, that the English and American Revisers—between +whom the differences are here noticeably very few—laboured +unitedly and successfully in keeping their revision of the +preceding version of these prophecies fully up to the high level +of the rest of their work.</p> +<p>II. I now pass onward to the consideration <!-- page +96--><a name="page96"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 96</span>of +the renderings in the Revised Version of the New Testament.</p> +<p>The object and purpose of the consideration will be exactly +the same, as in the foregoing pages, to show the faithful +thoroughness of the Revision, but the manner of showing this will +be somewhat different to the method I have adopted in the +foregoing portion of this Address. I shall not now bring +before you examples of the faithful and suggestive accuracy of +the revision, for to do this adequately would far exceed the +limits of these Addresses; and further, if done would far fall +short of the instructive volume of varied and admirably arranged +illustrations written only four years ago by a member of the +Company <a name="citation96"></a><a href="#footnote96" +class="citation">[96]</a>, now, alas, no longer with us, of which +I shall speak fully in my next Address.</p> +<p>What I shall now do will be to show that the principles on +which the version of the New Testament was based have been in no +degree affected by the copious literature connected with the +language of the Greek Testament and its historical position which +has appeared since the Revision was completed. It is only +quite lately that the Revisers have been represented as being +insufficiently acquainted, <!-- page 97--><a +name="page97"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 97</span>in several +particulars, with the Greek of the New Testament, and in a word, +being twenty years behind what is now known on the subject <a +name="citation97"></a><a href="#footnote97" +class="citation">[97]</a>. Such charges are easily made, +and may at first sight seem very plausible, as the last fifteen +or twenty years have brought with them an amount of research in +the language of the Greek Testament which might be thought to +antiquate some results of the Revision, and to affect to some +extent the long labours of those who took part in it. The +whole subject then must be fairly considered, especially in such +an Address as the present, in which the object is to set forth +the desirableness and rightfulness of using the version in the +public services of the Church.</p> +<p>But first a few preliminary comments must be made on the +manner and principles in which the changes of rendering have been +introduced into the venerable Version which was intrusted to us +to be revised.</p> +<p>The foremost principle to be alluded to is the one to which we +adhered steadily and persistently during the whole ten years of +our labour—the principle of faithfulness to the original +language in which it pleased <!-- page 98--><a +name="page98"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 98</span>Almighty God +that His saving truth should be revealed to the children of +men. As the lamented Bishop of Durham says most truly and +forcibly in his instructive “Lessons on the Revised Version +of the New Testament <a name="citation98a"></a><a +href="#footnote98a" class="citation">[98a]</a>;” +“Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was +the central aim of the Revisers <a name="citation98b"></a><a +href="#footnote98b" class="citation">[98b]</a>.” +Faithfulness, but to what? Certainly not to “the +sense and spirit of the original, ” as our +critics contended must have been meant by the rule,—but to +the original in its plain grammatical meaning as elicited by +accurate interpretation. This I can confidently state was +the intended meaning of the word when it appeared in the draft +rule that was submitted to the Committee of Convocation. So +it was understood by them; and so, I may add, it was understood +by the Company, because I can clearly remember a very full +discussion on the true meaning of the word at one of the early +meetings of the Company. Some alteration had been proposed +in the rendering of the Greek to which objection was made that it +did not come under the rule and principle of faithfulness. +This led to a general, and, as it proved, a final <!-- page +99--><a name="page99"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +99</span>discussion. Bishop Lightfoot, I remember, took an +earnest part in it. He contended that our revision must be +a true and thorough one; that such a meeting as ours could not be +assembled for many years to come, and that if the rendering was +plainly more accurate and more true to the original, it ought not +to be put aside as incompatible with some supposed aspect of the +rule of faithfulness. Proposals were often set aside +without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not +“worth while” to make them, and in a trivial matter +to disturb recollection of a familiar text; but the non-voting +resulted from the proposal being withdrawn owing to the mind of +the Company being plainly against it, and not from any direct +appeal to the principle of faithfulness. If the proposal +was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and the +matter authoritatively settled.</p> +<p>The contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisers +deliberately violated the principles under which the work was +committed to them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, +entirely erroneous. I have dwelt upon this matter because +when properly understood it clears away more than half of the +objections that have been urged <!-- page 100--><a +name="page100"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 100</span>against our +Revision. Of the remainder I cannot but agree with good +Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision—and the +criticisms were of every form and kind “pedantry, +spiritless literality, irritating triviality, destroyed +rhythm,” and so forth—no criticism ever came upon us +by surprise. The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heard +in the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their +conclusions they have heard since; and he goes on to say that no +restatement of old arguments had in the least degree shaken his +confidence in the general results. Such words from one now, +alas, no longer with us, but whose memory we cherish as one of +the most wide-minded as well as truth-seeking of the biblical +scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure the +partially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its real +trustworthiness and fidelity. But we must not confine our +attention simply to the renderings that hold a place in the text +of the Revised Version. We must take into our consideration +a very instructive portion of the work of the Revisers which is, +I fear, utterly neglected by the general reader—the +alternative readings and renderings that hold a place in the +margin, and <!-- page 101--><a name="page101"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 101</span>form an integral portion of the +Revision. Though we are now more particularly considering +the renderings, I include here the marginal readings, as the +relation of the margins to the Version could hardly be fully +specified without taking into consideration the margin in its +entirety. As readers of the Preface to the New Testament +(very few, I fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly +remember, alternative readings and renderings were prohibited in +the case of the Authorised Version, but, as we know, the +prohibition was completely disregarded, some thirty-five notes +referring to readings, and probably more than five hundred to +alternative renderings. In the fundamental rules of +Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course was +prescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on.</p> +<p>These alternative readings and renderings must be carefully +considered, as in the case of renderings much light is often +thrown on the true interpretation of the passage, especially in +the more difficult portions of the New Testament. Their +relation however to the actually accepted Version must not be +exaggerated, either in reference to readings or renderings. +I will make plain what I mean <!-- page 102--><a +name="page102"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 102</span>by an +example. Dr. Westcott specifies a reading of importance in +John i. 18 where he states that the reading in the margin +(“God only begotten”) did in point of fact express +the opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in +the text of the Version because it failed to secure the +two-thirds majority of those present at the final revision. +This, perhaps, makes a little too much of an acceptance at a +somewhat early period of the labours of the Company. So far +as I remember the case, the somewhat startling alteration was +accepted at the first revision (when the decision was to be by +simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of course +continued up to the second revision. At that revision the +then text and the then margin changed places. Dr. Hort, I +am well aware, published an important pamphlet on the subject, +but I have no remembrance that the first decision on the reading +was alluded to, either at the second revision or afterwards, in +any exceptional manner. It did but share the fate of +numberless alterations at the first revision that were not +finally confirmed.</p> +<p>The American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the +reading in question with their English brethren; and the same too +is the <!-- page 103--><a name="page103"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 103</span>judgement of Professor Nestle in his +carefully edited Greek Testament to which I have already +referred.</p> +<p>I have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am +especially desirous to encourage a far greater attention to the +margin than it has hitherto received, I am equally desirous that +the margin should not be elevated above its real position. +That position is one of subordination to the version actually +adopted, whether when maintaining the older form or changing +it. It expresses the judgement of a legal, if not also of a +numerical, minority, and, in the case of difficult passages (as +in Rom. ix. 4), the judgement of groups which the Company, as a +whole, deemed worthy of being recorded. But, not only +should the margin thus be considered, but the readings and +renderings preferred by the American Committee, which will often +be found suggestive and helpful. These, as we know, are now +incorporated in the American Standard Edition of the Revised +Bible; and the result, I fear, will be that the hitherto familiar +Appendix will disappear from the smaller English editions of the +Revised Version of the Old and New Testament. It is perhaps +inevitable, but it will be a real loss. All <!-- page +104--><a name="page104"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 104</span>I +can hope is that in some specified English editions of the Old +and New Testament each Appendix will regularly be maintained, and +that this token of the happy union of England and America in the +blessed work of revising their common version of God’s holy +Word will thus be preserved to the end.</p> +<p>But we must now pass onward to considerations very closely +affecting the renderings of the Revised Version of the Greek +Testament.</p> +<p>I have already said that very recently a new and unexpected +charge has been brought against the Revisers of the Authorised +Version. And the charge is no less than this, that the +Revisers were ignorant in several important particulars of the +language from which the version was originally made that they +were appointed to revise.</p> +<p>Now in meeting a charge of this nature, in which we may +certainly notice that want of considerate intelligence which +marks much of the criticism that has been directed against our +revision, it seems always best when dealing with a competent +scholar who does not give in detail examples on which the +criticism rests, to try and understand his point of view and the +general reasons for his unfavourable pronouncement. And in +this case I do not think <!-- page 105--><a +name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 105</span>it +difficult to perceive that the imputation of ignorance on the +part of the Revisers has arisen from an exaggerated estimate of +the additions to our knowledge of New Testament Greek which have +accumulated during the twenty years that have passed away since +the Revision was completed. If this be a correct, as it is +certainly a charitable, estimate of the circumstances under which +ignorance has been imputed to us in respect of several matters +relating to the Greek on which we were engaged, let us now leave +our critics, and deal with these reasonable questions. +First, what was the general knowledge, on the part of the +Revisers, of the character and peculiarities of New Testament +Greek? Secondly, what is the amount of the knowledge +relative to New Testament Greek that has been acquired since the +publication of the revision? and thirdly, to what extent does +this recently acquired knowledge affect the correctness and +fidelity of the renderings that have been adopted by the +Revisers? If these three questions are plainly answered we +shall have dealt fully and fairly with the doubts that have been +expressed or implied as to the correctness of the revision.</p> +<p>First, then, as to the general knowledge <!-- page 106--><a +name="page106"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 106</span>which the +revisers had of the character and peculiarities of the Greek of +the New Testament.</p> +<p>This question could not perhaps be more fairly and correctly +dealt with than by Bishop Westcott in the opening words of his +chapter on Exactness in Grammatical Detail, in the valuable work +to which I have already referred. What he states probably +expresses very exactly the general view taken by the great +majority, if not by all, of the Revisers in regard of the Greek +of the New Testament. What the Bishop says of the language +is this: “that it is marked by unique +characteristics. It is separated very clearly, both in +general vocabulary and in construction, from the language of the +LXX, the Greek Version of the Old Testament, which was its +preparation, and from the Greek of the Fathers which was its +development <a name="citation106"></a><a href="#footnote106" +class="citation">[106]</a>.”</p> +<p>If we accept this as a correct statement of the general +knowledge of the Revisers as to the language of the Greek +Testament, we naturally ask further, on what did they rely for +the correct interpretation of it. The answer can readily be +given, and it is this: Besides their general knowledge of Greek +which, in <!-- page 107--><a name="page107"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 107</span>the case of the large majority, was +very great, their knowledge of New Testament Greek was distinctly +influenced by the grammatical views of Professor Winer, of whose +valuable grammar of the Greek Testament one of our Company, as I +have mentioned in my first Address, had been a well-known and +successful translator. Though his name was not very +frequently brought up in our discussions, the influence his +grammar exerted among us, directly and indirectly, was certainly +great; but it went no further than grammatical details. His +obvious gravitation to the idea of New Testament Greek forming a +sort of separate department of its own probably never was shared, +to any perceptible extent, by any one of us. We did not +enter very far into these matters. We knew by every +day’s working experience that New Testament Greek differed +to some extent from the Greek to which we had been accustomed, +and from the Septuagint Greek to which from time to time we +referred. But further than this we did not go, nor care to +go. We had quite enough on our hands. We had a very +difficult task to perform, we had to revise under prescribed +conditions a version which needed revision almost in every verse, +and we had no time to <!-- page 108--><a name="page108"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 108</span>enter into questions that did not +then appear to bear directly on our engrossing and responsible +work.</p> +<p>But now it must be distinctly admitted that recent +investigation and, to a certain extent, recent discoveries have +cast so much new light on New Testament Greek that it becomes a +positive duty to take into consideration what has been disclosed +to us by the labours of the last fifteen years as to New +Testament Greek, and then fairly to face the question whether the +particular labours of the Revisers have been seriously affected +by it. Let us bear in mind, however, that it may be quite +possible that a largely increased knowledge of the position which +what used to be called Biblical Greek now occupies may be clearly +recognized, and yet only comparatively few changes necessitated +by it in syntactic details and renderings. But let us not +anticipate. What we have now to do is to ascertain the +nature and amount of the disclosures and new knowledge to which I +have alluded.</p> +<p>This may be briefly stated as emanating from a very large +amount of recent literature on post-classical Greek, and from a +careful and scientific investigation of the transition from the +earlier post-classical to the later, <!-- page 109--><a +name="page109"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 109</span>and thence +to the modern Greek of the present time. Such an +investigation, illustrated as it has been by the voluminous +collection of the Inscriptions, and the already large and growing +collection of the Papyri, has thrown indirectly considerable +light on New Testament Greek, and has also called out three +works, each of a very important character, and posterior to the +completion of the Revision, which deal directly with the Greek of +the New Testament. These three works I will now +specify.</p> +<p>The first, which is still in progress, and has not, I think, +yet received a translator, is the singularly accurate, and in +parts corrective, edition of Winer’s “Grammar” +by Prof. Schmiedel. The portion on the article is generally +recognized as of great value and importance.</p> +<p>The second work is the now well-translated “Bible +Studies” of Dr. Deissmann of Heidelberg <a +name="citation109"></a><a href="#footnote109" +class="citation">[109]</a>. This remarkable work, of which +the full title is “Contributions, chiefly from Papyri and +Inscriptions, to the History of the Language, the Literature, and +the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism, and Primitive +Christianity,” <!-- page 110--><a name="page110"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 110</span>contains not only a clear estimate +of the nature of New Testament Greek, but also a large and +instructive vocabulary of about 160 words and expressions in the +New Testament, most of which receive in varying degrees +illustration from the Papyri, and other approximately +contemporary sources. It must be noted, however, that the +writer himself specifies that his investigations “have +been, in part, arranged on a plan which is polemical <a +name="citation110a"></a><a href="#footnote110a" +class="citation">[110a]</a>.” This avowal must, to +some extent, affect our full acceptance of all the results +arrived at in this striking and laborious work.</p> +<p>The third work is a “Grammar of New Testament +Greek” by the well-known and distinguished scholar, Dr. +Blass, and is deserving of the fullest attention from every +earnest student of the Greek Testament. It has been +excellently translated by Mr. St. John Thackeray, of the +Education Department <a name="citation110b"></a><a +href="#footnote110b" class="citation">[110b]</a>. It is +really hardly possible to speak too highly of this helpful and +valuable work. Its value consists in this—that it has +been written, on the one hand, by an accomplished classical +scholar, and, on the other hand, by one who is thoroughly +acquainted with the investigations of the last fifteen <!-- page +111--><a name="page111"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +111</span>years. As his Introduction clearly shows, he +fully accepts the estimate that is now generally entertained of +the Greek of the New Testament, viz. that it is no isolated +production, as regards language, that had no historic relation to +the Greek of the past or of the future. It was not, to any +great extent, derived from the Greek <i>translations</i> of the +Old Testament—often, as Dr. Blass says, slavishly +literal—nor from the literary language of the time, but was +the spoken Greek of the age to which it belonged, modified by the +position and education of the speaker, and also to some extent, +though by no means to any large extent, by the Semitic element +which, from time to time, discloses itself in the language of the +inspired writers. This last-written epithet, which I +wittingly introduce, must not be lost sight of by the Christian +student.</p> +<p>Dr. Blass quite admits that the language of the Greek +Testament may be rightly treated in connexion with the +discoveries in Egypt furnished by the Papyri; but he has also +properly maintained elsewhere <a name="citation111"></a><a +href="#footnote111" class="citation">[111]</a> that the books of +the New Testament form a special group <i>to be primarily +explained by itself</i>. Greatly <!-- page 112--><a +name="page112"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 112</span>as we are +indebted to Dr. Deissmann for his illustrations, especially in +regard of vocabulary, we must read with serious caution, and +watch all attempts to make Inscriptions or Papyri do the work of +an interpretation of the inner meaning of God’s Holy Word +which belongs to another realm, and to the self-explanations +which are vouchsafed to us in the reverent study of the +Book—not of Humanity (as Deissmann speaks of the New +Testament) <a name="citation112"></a><a href="#footnote112" +class="citation">[112]</a> but of—Life.</p> +<p>I have now probably dealt sufficiently with the second of the +three questions which I have put forward for our +consideration. I have stated the general substance of the +knowledge which has been permitted to come to us since the +revision was completed. I now pass onward to the third and +most difficult question equitably to answer, “To what +extent does this newly-acquired knowledge affect the correctness +and fidelity of the revision of the Authorised Version of the New +Testament?” It is easy enough to speak of +“ignorance” on the part of the Revisers, especially +after what I have specified in the answer to the question on +which we have just been meditating; but <!-- page 113--><a +name="page113"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 113</span>the real +and practical question is this, “If the Revisers had all +this knowledge when they were engaged on their work, would it +have materially affected their revision?”</p> +<p>To this more limited form of the question I feel no difficulty +in replying, that I am fully and firmly persuaded that it would +<i>not</i> have materially affected the revision; and my grounds +for returning this answer depend on these two considerations: +first, that the full knowledge which some of us had of +Winer’s Grammar, and the general knowledge that was +possessed of it by the majority, certainly enabled us to realize +that the Greek on which we were engaged, while retaining very +many elements of what was classical, had in it also not only many +signs of post-classical Greek, but even of usages which we now +know belong to later developments. These later +developments, all of which are, to some extent, to be recognized +in the Greek Testament, such as the disappearance of the +optative, the use of ίνα with the subjunctive in +the place of the infinitive, the displacement of +μετά by συν, the interchange +of εις and εν, of +περί and υπέρ, the use of +compound forms without any corresponding increase of meaning, the +extended usage of the aorist, the wider sphere <!-- page 114--><a +name="page114"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 114</span>of the +accusative, and many similar indications of later Greek—all +these were so far known to us as to exercise a cautionary +influence on our revision, and to prevent us overpressing the +meaning of words and forms that had lost their original +definiteness.</p> +<p>My second reason for the answer I have given to the question +is based on the accumulating experience we were acquiring in our +ten years of labour, and our instinctive avoidance of renderings +which in appearance might be precise, but did in reality +exaggerate the plain meaning intended by the Greek that we were +rendering. Sometimes, but only rarely, we fell into this +excusable form of over-rendering. Perhaps the concluding +words of Mark xiv. 65 will supply an example. At any rate, +the view taken by Blass <a name="citation114"></a><a +href="#footnote114" class="citation">[114]</a> would seem to +suggest a less literal form of translation.</p> +<p>When I leave the limited form of answer, and face the broad +and general question of the extent to which our recently-acquired +knowledge affects the correctness and fidelity of the revision, I +can only give an answer founded on an examination of numerous +passages in which I have compared the comments of Dr. Blass in +his Grammar, and <!-- page 115--><a name="page115"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 115</span>of Dr. Deissmann in his “Bible +Studies with the renderings of the Revisers.” And the +answer is this, that the number of cases in which any change +could reasonably be required has been so small, so very small, +that the charge of any real ignorance, on the part of the +Revisers, of the Greek on which they were engaged, must be +dismissed as utterly and entirely exaggerated. We have now +acquired an increased knowledge of the character of the Greek of +the New Testament, and of the place it holds in the historical +transition of the language from the earlier post-classical to the +later developments of the language, but this knowledge, +interesting and instructive as it may be, leaves the principles +of correctly translating it practically intact. In this +latter process we must deal with the language of the Greek +Testament as we would deal with the language of any other Greek +book, and make the book, as far as we have the means of doing so, +its own interpreter.</p> +<p>Having thus shown in broad and general terms, as far as I have +been able to do so, that we may still, notwithstanding the twenty +years that have passed away, regard the Revised Version of the +Greek Testament as <!-- page 116--><a name="page116"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 116</span>a faithfully executed revision, and +its renderings such as may be accepted with full Christian +confidence, I now turn to the easier, but not less necessary, +duty of bringing before you some considerations why this Version +and, with it, the Revised Version of the Old Testament, should be +regularly used in the public services of our Mother Church.</p> +<h2><!-- page 117--><a name="page117"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 117</span>ADDRESS V.<br /> +<span class="smcap">Public use of the Version</span>.</h2> +<p>We have now traced the external, and to some extent the +internal history of Revision from the time, some fifty years ago, +when it began to occupy the thoughts of scholars and divines, +down to the present day.</p> +<p>We have seen the steady advance in Church opinion as to its +necessity; its earliest manifestations, and the silent progress +from what was tentative and provisional to authoritative +recognition, and to carefully formulated procedures under the +high and venerable sanction of the two Houses of the Convocation +of Canterbury. We have further seen how the movement +extended to America, and how some of the best scholars and +divines of that Christian country co-operated with those of our +own country in the arduous and responsible work of revising their +common heritage, the Version of God’s most Holy Word, as +set forth by authority 290 years ago. We have noted <!-- +page 118--><a name="page118"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +118</span>too, that in this work not less than one hundred +scholars and divines were engaged—for fourteen years in the +case of the Old Testament, and for ten years in the case of the +New Testament—and that this long period of labour and study +was marked by regularly appointed and faithfully kept times of +meeting, and by the interchange with the Revisers on the other +side of the Atlantic of successive portions of the work, until +the whole was completed.</p> +<p>And this Revision, as we have seen, has included a full +consideration of the text of the original languages as well as of +the renderings. In the Old Testament, adherence to the +Massorite Text has left only a very limited number of passages in +which consideration of the ancient Version was deemed to be +necessary; but, in the New Testament, as we well know, questions +of textual criticism occupied a large portion of the time and +attention of the Revisers, both here and in America. In +regard of the renderings, we have seen the care and thoroughness +with which the Revision was carried out, the marginal notes in +both Testaments showing convincingly, especially on the more +difficult passages, how every rendering that could be regarded as +in any degree probable received its full share of <!-- page +119--><a name="page119"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +119</span>consideration. Finally, it must not be forgotten +that, in the case of the New Testament, the serious question +whether the research in New Testament Greek since the Revision +was completed has, to any appreciable extent, affected the +suggestive light and truth of really innumerable corrections and +changes—this too has been faced, and the charge fairly met, +that just conclusions drawn from the true nature of the Greek, +gravely affecting interpretation, have been ignored by the +Revisers.</p> +<p>So much of the latter part of the last Address has been taken +up with this necessary duty of showing that the changes in +renderings cannot be invalidated by <i>a priori</i> +considerations founded on the alleged insufficient knowledge, on +the part of the Revisers, of the nature of the Greek they were +translating, that I have not cited examples of the light-giving +and often serious nature of the changes made in the Authorised +Version. This I regretted at the time; but a little +consideration showed me that it was much better for the cause in +which I am engaged that I should refer you for illustrations of +the nature and value of the renderings in the Revised Version of +the New Testament to <!-- page 120--><a name="page120"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 120</span>a singularly fruitful and helpful +volume, published only four years ago, and so subsequently to the +researches in New Testament Greek of which I have spoken. +This volume was written by a member of our Company—now, +alas, no longer with us—whose knowledge of the Greek +language, whether of earlier or of later date, no one could +possibly doubt. I allude to the “Lessons of the +Revised Version of the New Testament,” by Dr. Westcott, a +volume that has not yet received the full attention which its +remarkable merits abundantly claim, for it.</p> +<p>Of this volume I shall speak more fully later on in this +Address, my object now being to set forth the desirableness, I +might even say the duty, of using the Revised Version in the +Public Services of the Church.</p> +<p>After the summary I have just given of the external history of +this great movement, does not the question come home to us, Why +has all this been done? For what have the hundred labourers +in the great work freely given their time and their energies +during the four and twenty years (speaking collectively) that +were spent on the work? For what did the venerable +Convocation of our Province give the weight of its sanction and +authority <!-- page 121--><a name="page121"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 121</span>when it drew up the fundamental +rules in accordance with which all has been done? Can there +be any other answer than this? All has been done to bring +the truth of God’s most Holy Word more faithfully and more +freshly home to the hearts and consciences of our +English-speaking people. And if this be so, how are +ministers of this Holy Word to answer the further question, When +we are met together in the House of God to hear His word and His +message of salvation to mankind, how hear we it? In the +traditional form in which it has been heard for wellnigh three +hundred years, or in a form on which, to ensure faithfulness and +accuracy, such labour has been bestowed as that which we are now +considering? It seems impossible to hesitate as to our +answer. And yet numbers do hesitate; and partly from +indifference, partly from a vague fear of disquieting a +congregation, partly, and probably chiefly, from a sense of +difficulty as to the rightful mode of introducing the change, the +old Version is still read, albeit with an uneasy feeling on the +part of the public reader; the uneasy feeling being this, that +errors in regard of Holy Scripture ought not to remain +uncorrected nor obscurities left to cloud the meaning of <!-- +page 122--><a name="page122"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +122</span>God’s Word when there is a current Version from +which errors are removed, and in which obscurities are +dissipated. Why should not such a Version be read in the +ears of our people?</p> +<p>This is the question which I am confident many a one of you, +my dear friends, when you have been reading in your +church—say the Epistles—have often felt very +distinctly come home to you. Why should such a Version not +be read in the ears of our people? Has it been +forbidden? No, thank God; full liberty, on the contrary, +has been left to us by the living voice of the synod of this +Province that it may be read, subject to one reasonable +limitation. Was it not the unanimous judgement of the Upper +House of the Convocation of our Province, confirmed by the voice +of the Lower House <a name="citation122"></a><a +href="#footnote122" class="citation">[122]</a>—“That +the use of the Revised Version of the Bible at the lectern in the +public services of the Church, where this is desired by clergy +and people, is not open to any well-founded objection, and will +tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of Holy +Scripture”? And further, was not this adopted by the +Lay House of our Province, <!-- page 123--><a +name="page123"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 123</span>even when a +few doubting voices were heard <a name="citation123"></a><a +href="#footnote123" class="citation">[123]</a>, and an +interpretation given to the word “use,” in the form +of a rider, which, I can confidently say, never entered into the +minds or thoughts of the members of the Upper House? +Indeed, though I do not wish to criticise the decision of the +House of Laymen, their appended words of interpretation fall to +the ground. If “use” is to mean +“occasional employment of Lessons from the Revised Version, +where, in the interest of more accurate translation, it is +desirable,” can any Lessons be found where the interest of +more accurate translation is not patently concerned? If +this be so, what meaning can we assign to “occasional +employment”?</p> +<p>We see then plainly, if we are to be guided by the judgement +of the venerable body to whom the authoritative inception of +Revision is alone to be assigned, that the way to its use in the +Public Services of the Church is open to us all—<i>where +such use is desired by clergy and people</i>. Now let us +take these words seriously into our consideration. They +clearly mean, however good the Version may be, that there is to +be no sudden and precipitate use of the Revised Version in the +<!-- page 124--><a name="page124"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +124</span>appointed Lessons for the day on the part of the +minister of any of our parishes. If introduced, its +introduction must not be simply when it is desired by the +clergyman, but when it is also desired by his people. So +great a change as the displacement of the old and familiar +Authorised Version—for it amounts to this—in the +public reading of Holy Scripture in the Services of the Church, +in favour of an altered form of the old Version (though +confessedly so altered that the general hearer would hardly ever +recognize the displacement)—so great a change ought not to +be made without the knowledge, and further, the desire of the +congregation.</p> +<p>But how is the desire for the change to be ascertained? +So far as I can see, there can be only one real and rightful way +of bringing about the desire and the manifestation of it, and +that is by first of all showing simply and plainly how, +especially in the New Testament, the alterations give life, +colouring and reality to the narratives of Evangelists, force and +lucidity to the reasonings of Apostles, and, what is of still +more vital importance, deeper insight into our relations to our +saving Lord, clearer knowledge of His blessed life and work here +on earth, and quickened perceptions <!-- page 125--><a +name="page125"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 125</span>of our +present and our future, and, to a very real extent, of the holy +mysteries of the life of the world to come. When changes of +text and of renderings are shown, and they can be shown, to bear +with them these fuller revelations of God’s Holy Word, +there will be no lack of desire, and of the manifestation of it, +in any congregation, for the public use of a Version through +which such disclosures as I have specified can be brought home to +the truth-seeking believer.</p> +<p>My fixed opinion therefore is this, that though, after a long +and careful consideration of the subject, I do sincerely desire +that the Revised Version should be introduced into the churches +of this diocese, I do also sincerely desire that it should not be +introduced without a due preparation of the congregation for the +change, and some manifestation of their desire for the +change. There will probably be a few churches in our +diocese in which the Revised Version is used already, and in +regard of them nothing more will be necessary than, from time to +time, in occasional addresses, to allude to any important changes +that may have appeared in the Lessons and recent readings of Holy +Scripture, and thus to keep alive the thoughtful study of that +which will be more and more <!-- page 126--><a +name="page126"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 126</span>felt to be, +in the truest sense of the words, the Book of Life. But, in +the great majority of our churches—though in many cases +there may have been passing desires to read and to hear +God’s Word in its most truthful form—no forward steps +will have been taken. It is in reference then to this great +majority of cases that I have broken my long silence, and, before +my ministry closes, have resolved to bring before you the whole +history of the greatest spiritual movement that has taken place +since the Reformation; and also to indicate the untold blessings +the Revision will bear to those who avail themselves of it in all +reverent earnestness and devotion.</p> +<p>Thus far I hope I have made it plain that any forward steps +that may be taken can only hopefully be taken when, both in the +case of pastor and people, due preparation shall have been made +for what, in the sequel, will be found to be an enduring +spiritual change in the relation of the soul of the devout hearer +or reader to the Book of Life. He will learn not only +faithfully to read the inspired Word, but inwardly to love +it.</p> +<p>But what shall we regard as due preparation in the case of +pastor and people? This question, I can well believe, has +already risen <!-- page 127--><a name="page127"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 127</span>in the hearts of many who are now +hearing these words, and to the best answer to it that I am able +to give you I will gladly devote the remainder of this present +Address. Let us first consider how any one of you really +and truly desirous to prepare his congregation for the hearing of +God’s Word in the form known as the Revised +Version—how such a one should prepare himself for the +responsible duty. Prayer for himself and his congregation +in this great spiritual matter should ever be his first +preparation. After this his next care should be to provide +himself with such books as will be indispensable for faithful +preparation. First and foremost, let him provide himself +with a copy of what is called the Parallel Bible, the Authorised +Version being on the left-hand side of the page, and the Revised +Version on the right. Next let it be his duty to read +closely and carefully the Preface to the Old Testament and the +Preface to the New Testament. Had this been done years ago, +how much of unfair criticism should we all have been +spared? The next step will be to obtain some competent +guide-book to explain the meaning of the different changes of +rendering, the alterations due to readings having been separately +noted. The guide-book, <!-- page 128--><a +name="page128"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 128</span>whether in +the case of the Old or of the New Testament, should, in my +judgement, be a volume written by a Reviser, as he would have a +knowledge, far beyond what could be obtained by an outsider, of +the reasons for many of the departures from the Authorised +Version.</p> +<p>In regard of the Old Testament I have said in my last Address +that I do not myself know of any guide-book, written by a +Reviser, save the interesting volume by Dr. Talbot Chambers, to +which I have been indebted for much that, being a member of +another Company, I could not have brought forward without his +assistance. In regard of the New Testament, however, it is +otherwise. There is a useful volume by my old friend and +former colleague the late Prebendary Humphry; but the volume +which I most earnestly desire to name is the volume already +mentioned, and entitled “Some Lessons of the Revised +Version of the New Testament,” by the late Bishop of +Durham. This book is simply indispensable for any one +desirous of preparing himself for the duty of introducing the +Revised Version of the New Testament into the Public Services of +his parish. It is one of those rare and remarkable books +that not only give the <!-- page 129--><a +name="page129"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 129</span>needed +explanation, but also cast a light on the whole spiritual results +of the change, and constantly awaken in the reader some portion +of the enthusiasm with which the Bishop records changes that many +an earnest and devout reader might think belonged only to the +details of grammatical accuracy. I thus cannot forbear +quoting a few lines in which the Bishop, after alluding to the +change in Matt. xxviii. 19, <i>into</i> (not <i>in</i>) <i>the +name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost</i>, and the change in +Rom. vi. 23, <i>eternal life in</i> (not <i>through</i>) +<i>Christ Jesus our Lord</i>, thus speaks from his inmost soul: +“Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered the meaning +of those two prepositions now truly +rendered—‘<i>into</i> the name,’ +‘<i>in</i> Christ’—has found the central truth +of Christianity? Certainly I would gladly have given the +ten years of my life spent on the Revision to bring only these +two phrases of the New Testament to the heart of +Englishmen.” Is it too much to say that a volume +written by a guide such as this is simply indispensable for any +one who prepares himself for introducing to his people—the +government of whose souls has been committed to him—the +Revised Version of the New Testament of our Lord and Master Jesus +Christ.</p> +<p><!-- page 130--><a name="page130"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +130</span>With the help that I have specified any one of you, my +dear friends, might adequately prepare himself for the duty and +responsibility of taking the next step, the preparation of his +congregation for hearing the Word of God in the form that most +nearly approaches in our own language what prophets, evangelists, +and apostles have written for our learning under the inspiration +of God. This preparation may be carried on in many forms, +by pastoral visitations, through our Bible classes, through the +efforts of our mission preachers in the holy seasons, but +obviously most hopefully and persuasively by the living voice of +the faithful pastor in his public ministrations in the pulpit of +his church. Parishes differ so much in spiritual culture +that probably no method of preparation could be specified that +would be equally applicable to all. Still in the case of +our country parishes I am persuaded our preparation must come +from the pulpit and in a manner carefully thought out and +prearranged. Let me give some indication of a mode of +bringing the subject forward in a country parish that would call +out the desire for the regular use of the Revised Version in the +reading of the Lessons for the day.</p> +<p><!-- page 131--><a name="page131"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +131</span>Let us suppose a month set apart for the +preparation. On the first Sunday let an account be given of +the circumstances, and especially the authority under which the +Revision came into existence. On the second Sunday let +illustrations be given of the nature of the Revision from those +parts in Bishop Westcott’s “Lessons of the Revised +Version of the New Testament” which made the deepest +impression during the study of that suggestive and spiritual +volume. On the third Sunday let comments be made on the +most striking of the changes in the two appointed Lessons for the +day from the Old Testament. Here the preacher may find some +difficulty, as want of knowledge of Hebrew or of the right +interpretation of the passage in which the alteration is made +might prevent his clearly stating the reasons for it. In +such cases a good modern Commentary on the Old Testament would +probably supply the needed assistance. The most available +Commentary I know of for the purpose is the one published by +Messrs. Cassells, and now sold at the low price—for both +Testaments—of thirty-five shillings. On the fourth +Sunday, the preacher’s subject should be the most striking +of the changes in the two appointed Lessons from <!-- page +132--><a name="page132"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +132</span>the New Testament. For this there would be +abundant help supplied by the volume of Bishop Westcott, and, if +needed, by the Commentary on the New Testament to which I have +alluded.</p> +<p>Now I sincerely believe that if this very simple and feasible +plan were carried out in any parish, two results would certainly +follow: first, that the Revised Version would be desired and +welcomed; secondly, that an interest in God’s Holy Word +would be called out in the parish and its Bible classes that +would make a lasting impression on the whole spiritual life of +the place. We have many faults, but we are a Bible-loving +nation, and we have shown it in many crises of our history; and +thus, I am persuaded, in a change such as I have suggested, the +old love would be called out afresh, and would display itself in +a manner we might never have expected.</p> +<p>I feel now that I have said all that it may be well for me to +have laid before you. I have used no tone of authority; I +have not urged in any way the introduction of the Revised +Version, or that the plan of introducing it should be adopted by +any one among you. I have contented myself with having +shown that it is feasible; and I have definitely stated <!-- page +133--><a name="page133"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 133</span>my +opinion that, if it were to be adopted, it is in a high degree +probable that a fresh interest in the Holy Scriptures would be +awakened, and the love of God’s Holy Word again found to be +a living reality.</p> +<p>Perhaps the present time may be of greater moment in regard of +the study of Holy Scripture, and especially of the language of +the Greek Testament, than we may now be able distinctly to +foresee. I mentioned in my last Address the large amount of +research, during the last fifteen years, in reference to the +Greek of the New Testament and the position which the sacred +volume, considered simply historically and as a collection of +writings in the Greek language of the first century after Christ, +really does hold in the general history of a language which, in +its latest form, is widely spoken to this very day. I +mentioned also what seemed to be the most reasonable opinion, +viz. that the Greek of the New Testament was the spoken Greek of +the time, neither literary Greek nor the Greek of the lower +class, but Greek such as men would use at that time when they had +to place in the definiteness of writing the language which passed +from their lips in their converse with their fellow-men. +Now, that advantage will <!-- page 134--><a +name="page134"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 134</span>be taken of +this, and that it will be used to show that the spiritual +deductions that we draw from the written words cannot be fully +relied on, because old distinctions have been obscured or +obliterated, is what I fear, in days such as these, will often be +used against the faithful reading, marking, and learning of the +Written Word. But we shall hear them, I hope, with the two +true conclusive answers ever present in the soul, the answer of +plain human reasoning, and the deeper answer which revelation +brings seriously home to us. In regard of the first answer, +does not plain common sense justify us in maintaining that the +writers meant what they <i>wrote</i>, and that when they used +certain Greek words in the mighty message they were delivering to +their fellow-men and to all who should hereafter receive it, they +did mean that those words were to be understood in the plain and +simple meaning that every plain reader would assign to +them. They were not speaking; they were writing; and they +were writing what they knew was to be for all time. Thus to +take an example from the passages above referred to of which +Bishop Westcott makes such impressive use, who can doubt, with +any fair show of reason—however frequent may be the +interchange of the particular prepositions <!-- page 135--><a +name="page135"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 135</span>in the +first century—that, in those passages, when St. Matthew +wrote εις he did mean <i>into</i>; and that +when St. Paul used εν, he did mean <i>in</i>, in the +simplest sense of the word?</p> +<p>But to the devout Christian we have a far deeper answer than +the answer we have just considered.</p> +<p>In the first place, does not the manifold wisdom of God reveal +itself to our poor human thoughts in His choice of a widespread +spoken language, just by its very diffusion readily lending +itself to the reception of new words and new thoughts as the +medium by which the Gospel message was communicated to the +children of men? Just as the particular period of +Christ’s manifestation has ever been reverently regarded as +a revelation of the manifold nature of the eternal wisdom, so may +we not see the same in the choice of a language, at a particular +period of its development, as the bearer of the message of +salvation to mankind? Surely this is a manifestation of the +Divine wisdom which must ever be seen and felt whenever the +outward character of the Greek of the New Testament is dwelt upon +by the truth-seeking spirit of the reverent believer.</p> +<p><!-- page 136--><a name="page136"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +136</span>And is there not a second thought, far too much lost +sight of in our investigation of the written word of the New +Testament—that just as the writers had their human powers +quickened and strengthened by the Holy Ghost for the full setting +forth of the Gospel message by their spoken words, so in regard +of their written words would the same blessed guidance be +vouchsafed to them? And if so, is it not right for us, not +only to draw from their words all that by the plain laws of +language they can be understood to convey to us, but also to do +what has been done in the Revised Version, and to find the +nearest equivalent our language supplies for the words in the +original?</p> +<p>These thoughts might be carried much further, but enough has +been said to justify the minute care that has been taken in the +renderings of the written word of the New Testament by the +Revisers, and further, the validity of the deductions that may be +drawn from their use of one word rather than another, especially +in the case of words that might seem to be practically +synonymous. It may be quite true that, in the current Greek +of the time, many of the distinctions that were valid in an +earlier period of the <!-- page 137--><a name="page137"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 137</span>language were no longer observed; +and of this we find many indications in the Greek +Testament. But it must be remembered that we also find in +the Greek Testament a vastly preponderating portion of what is +grammatically correct according to the earlier standard, and +often clear indications that what was so written must have been +definitely meant by the writer. Is it not then our clearest +duty, remembering always that what we are translating is the +Gospel message, to do what the Revisers did, to render each +passage in accordance with the recognized meaning of the words, +and in harmony with the plain tenor of the context?</p> +<p>I now close these words and these Addresses with the solemn +prayer to Almighty God that in this great matter, and in the use +of that which the living voice of our synod permits us to use, we +may be guided by God the Holy Ghost, through Jesus Christ, our +ever-blessed and redeeming Lord and God.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>[As the use at the lectern of the Revised Version in the +Public Service of the Church may be thought likely to involve +expense, I may mention that the small pica edition of the Bible, +at 10<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> net, and of the Apocrypha <!-- page +138--><a name="page138"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +138</span>separately, at 7<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, will be found +sufficient in most churches. The folio edition in buckram +of the Bible with Apocrypha will, I understand, be two guineas, +net. Application however should be made to the University +Press of Oxford or of Cambridge, or to the Christian Knowledge +Society.]</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">oxford</span>: +<span class="smcap">horace hart</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">printer to the university</span></p> +<h2><!-- page 139--><a name="page139"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 139</span>Works by the same Author.</h2> +<p>ARE WE TO MODIFY FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE? Small post 8vo, +cloth boards, 1<i>s.</i></p> +<p>CHRISTUS COMPROBATOR; or, The Testimony of Christ to the Old +Testament. Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 2<i>s.</i></p> +<p>FOUNDATIONS OF SACRED STUDY. Part I. Small post +8vo, cloth boards, 2<i>s.</i>; Part II, 2<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p> +<p>MODERN UNBELIEF: its Principles and Characteristics. +Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p> +<p>OUR REFORMED CHURCH AND ITS PRESENT TROUBLES. Small post +8vo, cloth boards, 6<i>d.</i></p> +<p>SALUTARY DOCTRINE. Small post 8vo, cloth boards, +1<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p> +<p>SPIRITUAL NEEDS IN COUNTRY PARISHES. Small post 8vo, +cloth boards, 1<i>s.</i></p> +<p>THE BEING OF GOD (Six Addresses on). Small post 8vo, +cloth boards, 1<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p> +<p style="text-align: center">SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN +KNOWLEDGE.<br /> +<span class="smcap">London</span>: <span +class="smcap">Northumberland Avenue</span>, W.C.</p> +<h2>Footnotes:</h2> +<p><a name="footnote6"></a><a href="#citation6" +class="footnote">[6]</a> The following Resolution was +passed unanimously by the Upper House of the Convocation of +Canterbury on Feb. 10, 1899, after the presentation of the Report +of the Committee (well worthy of being read) by the Bishop of +Rochester. The Report is numbered 329, and, with other +Reports of Convocation, is sold by the National +Society:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“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.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="footnote10a"></a><a href="#citation10a" +class="footnote">[10a]</a> Among others may be named the +<i>Edinburgh Review</i> for 1855 on Paragraph Bibles, in which it +was said that it was now high time for another revision (p. 429); +the <i>Christian Remembrancer</i> for 1856 on the Revision of the +Authorised Version (an interesting article); the <i>Quarterly +Review</i> for 1863, intimating that as yet we were not ripe for +any authorised text or translation; the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> +for 1865; and the <i>Contemporary Review</i> for 1868, a careful +and elaborate article, contending that the work must be done by a +Commission.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10b"></a><a href="#citation10b" +class="footnote">[10b]</a> In February, 1856, when Canon +Selwyn gave notice of proposing a petition on the subject to the +Upper House. The proposal in a somewhat different form a +year afterwards was disposed of by a characteristic amendment of +Archdeacon Denison.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10c"></a><a href="#citation10c" +class="footnote">[10c]</a> On July 22, 1856, Mr. Heywood, +one of the members, I think, for North Lancashire, in rather an +interesting speech, moved for an Address to the Crown to issue a +Royal Commission on the subject. The motion was rejected, +Sir George Grey expressing his conviction that the feeling of the +country was not in accordance with the motion.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12" +class="footnote">[12]</a> Preface to the Revision of the +Authorised Version of the Gospel according to St. John by Five +Clergymen, p. xii. As I remark afterwards, this preface +proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatly +helped the cause. The book has long since gone out of +print, but if any reader of this note should come across it, this +preface will be found well worth reading, as it will show what +was in the minds of many beside the Five Clergymen five and forty +years ago.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13"></a><a href="#citation13" +class="footnote">[13]</a> See Schaff, <i>Companion to Greek +Testament and English version</i>, p. 367, note (New York, +1883).</p> +<p><a name="footnote21"></a><a href="#citation21" +class="footnote">[21]</a> The <i>Expositor</i> for October, +1892, pp. 241-255. The article was answered by me in the +same periodical two months later.</p> +<p><a name="footnote22"></a><a href="#citation22" +class="footnote">[22]</a> The account of the discussion in +the Convocation of York (Feb. 23, 1870) will be found in <i>The +Guardian</i> of March 2, 1870. In the comments of this +paper on the action or rather inaction of the Northern +Convocation a very unfavourable opinion was expressed, in +reference to the manner in which the Southern Convocation had +been treated. But these things have long since been +forgotten.</p> +<p><a name="footnote35"></a><a href="#citation35" +class="footnote">[35]</a> It may be interesting to give +this list, as it slightly affects matter that will be alluded to +afterwards in reference to the Greek text. The attendances +were as follows: The Chairman, 405; Dr. Scrivener, 399; +Prebendary Humphry, 385; Principal Newth, 373; Prof. Hort, 362; +Dean Bickersteth (Prolocutor), 352; Dean Scott, 337; Prof. +Westcott, 304; Dean Vaughan, 302; Dean Blakesley, 297; Bishop +Lightfoot, 290; Archdeacon Lee, 283; Dr. Moulton, 275; Archdeacon +Palmer, 255; Dean Stanley, 253; Dr. Vance Smith, 245; Principal +Brown, 209; Principal Angus, 199; Prof. Milligan, 182; Prof. +Kennedy, 165; Dr. Eadie, 135; Bishop Moberly, 121; Bishop +Wordsworth (St. Andrews), 109; Dr. Roberts, 94; Archbishop +Trench, 63; Dean Merivale (resigned early), 19; Dean Alford (died +soon after commencement), 16; Bishop Wilberforce, 1.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36"></a><a href="#citation36" +class="footnote">[36]</a> This letter will be found in a +very valuable <i>Historical Account of the Work of the American +Committee of Revision</i> (New York, 1885), p. 30. This +<i>Historical Account</i> was prepared by a special Committee +appointed for the purpose in May, 1884, and was based on +documents and papers arranged with great care by Dr. Philip +Schaff, the President of the American Committee, and printed +privately. These two volumes, the <i>Historical Account</i> +and the <i>Documentary History</i>, contain the fullest details +of the whole transactions between the American Committee and the +English Companies and also the University Presses.</p> +<p><a name="footnote41"></a><a href="#citation41" +class="footnote">[41]</a> Talbot W. Chambers, <i>Companion +to the Revised Old Testament</i> (Funk and Wagnalls, New York and +London, 1885), Preface, p. ix.</p> +<p><a name="footnote42a"></a><a href="#citation42a" +class="footnote">[42a]</a> A full account of the +negotiation and copies of the letters which passed between the +American Revisers and our own Revisers will be found in Part 2, +p. 81 sqq. of the <i>Documentary History</i>, above referred to +in the note at p. 36.</p> +<p><a name="footnote42b"></a><a href="#citation42b" +class="footnote">[42b]</a> A full account of this agreement +and copies of the correspondence with the Universities of Oxford +and Cambridge will be found in Part 3, p. 91 sqq. of the +<i>Documentary History</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44"></a><a href="#citation44" +class="footnote">[44]</a> Since the above was written, +information reaches me that an <i>American Standard Revision of +the Bible</i> either just has been, or shortly will be, +published, which though not simply an incorporation of the +recorded American preferences, as long specified in our copies of +the Revision, is a publication resting on authority, and likely +to put a stop to what is unauthorised. As the reader may +like to know a little about this <i>American Standard Revision of +the Bible</i>, I will, at the risk of a long note, mention what I +have ascertained up to the present time. The survivors of +the Old Testament Company (Dr. Osgood and others) with the three +surviving members of the New Testament Company (Dr. Dwight, Dr. +Riddle, and Dr. Thayer—very powerful helpers) have +co-operated in bringing out a new edition of the Revision as it +has been hitherto current in America. It will contain about +<i>twice as many</i> deviations from the English Revised Version +as appear in the original Appendices; but, in regard of them, the +survivors give this important assurance, that “the +survivors have not felt at liberty to make new changes of moment +which were not favourably passed upon (<i>sic</i>) by their +associates, at one stage or another of the original preparation +of the work.” They specify that the original Appendix +was prepared in haste and did not, in a satisfactory manner, +express the real views of the Committee. They claim to have +drawn up a body of improved marginal references, to have wholly +removed archaisms, to have supplied running headings, to have +modified what they consider unwieldy paragraphs, to have +lightened what they regard as clumsy punctuation, and by +typographical arrangements, such as by leaving a line blank, to +have indicated the main transitions of thought in the Epistles +and Apocalypse. These and other characteristics will be +found specified in the American <i>Sunday School Times</i> for +August 11, 1901, in an article apparently derived from those +interested. Till we see the book we must suspend our +judgement.</p> +<p><a name="footnote50"></a><a href="#citation50" +class="footnote">[50]</a> See an article by Rev. J. F. +Thrupp in Smith’s <i>Dictionary of the Bible</i>, vol. ii. +art. Old Testament.</p> +<p><a name="footnote53"></a><a href="#citation53" +class="footnote">[53]</a> Since the above was written a +critical edition of the four Peshitto Gospels has been published +by the Oxford University Press, based on the labours of the late +Philip Edward Pusey, and Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, of Hertford +College.</p> +<p><a name="footnote55"></a><a href="#citation55" +class="footnote">[55]</a> The title of the pamphlet, which +contains twelve letters from distinguished German Professors, +with translations, is <i>The Revision of the Old Testament</i> +(New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1886).</p> +<p><a name="footnote59"></a><a href="#citation59" +class="footnote">[59]</a> The title of Dr. Salmon’s +interesting volume is <i>Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism +of the New Testament</i> (Murray, London, 1897).</p> +<p><a name="footnote60a"></a><a href="#citation60a" +class="footnote">[60a]</a> Salmon, p. 157.</p> +<p><a name="footnote60b"></a><a href="#citation60b" +class="footnote">[60b]</a> Ibid., p. 12.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96"></a><a href="#citation96" +class="footnote">[96]</a> See below, pp. 98, 120.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97"></a><a href="#citation97" +class="footnote">[97]</a> See the Preface to Dr. +Rutherford’s <i>Translation of the Epistle to the +Romans</i>, p. xi sq. (Lond. 1900).</p> +<p><a name="footnote98a"></a><a href="#citation98a" +class="footnote">[98a]</a> Hodder & Stoughton (Lond. +1897).</p> +<p><a name="footnote98b"></a><a href="#citation98b" +class="footnote">[98b]</a> Page 18.</p> +<p><a name="footnote106"></a><a href="#citation106" +class="footnote">[106]</a> See page 32.</p> +<p><a name="footnote109"></a><a href="#citation109" +class="footnote">[109]</a> <i>Bible Studies</i>, by Dr. G. +Adolf Deissmann, Authorised Translation (Clark, Edinburgh, +1901).</p> +<p><a name="footnote110a"></a><a href="#citation110a" +class="footnote">[110a]</a> Page 175.</p> +<p><a name="footnote110b"></a><a href="#citation110b" +class="footnote">[110b]</a> London, Macmillan, 1898.</p> +<p><a name="footnote111"></a><a href="#citation111" +class="footnote">[111]</a> <i>Theologische +Literaturzeitung</i>, xix (vol. for 1894), p. 338.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112"></a><a href="#citation112" +class="footnote">[112]</a> <i>Bible Studies</i>, p. 84 +Transl. See, however, the translator’s note, p. 173, +where the use of the term is explained.</p> +<p><a name="footnote114"></a><a href="#citation114" +class="footnote">[114]</a> <i>Grammar of New Testament +Greek</i>, § 38. 5, p. 118 (Transl.).</p> +<p><a name="footnote122"></a><a href="#citation122" +class="footnote">[122]</a> See <i>Chronicle of +Convocation</i> for February 10, 1899, p. 71 sqq.</p> +<p><a name="footnote123"></a><a href="#citation123" +class="footnote">[123]</a> At the May Meeting of the +present year.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ADDRESSES ON THE REVISED VERSION OF +HOLY SCRIPTURE***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 25412-h.htm or 25412-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/5/4/1/25412 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> |