Cambridge.
Mr Edward Lively, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Mr John Richardson, afterwards master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Laurence Chatterton, master of Emm. Coll.
Mr Francis Dillingham, fellow of Christ's Coll.
Mr Thomas Harrison, vice-master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Roger Andrewes, afterwards master of Jesus Coll.
Mr Robert Spalding, fellow of St John's.
Mr Andrew Byng, fellow of St Peter's Coll.
Isaiah-Malachi.
Oxford.
Dr John Harding, pres. of Magd. Coll.
Dr John Reynolds, pres. of Corpus Christi Coll.
Dr Thomas Holland, afterwards rector of Ex. Coll.
Mr Richard Kilbye, rector of Lincoln Coll.
Dr Miles Smith, Brasenose Coll.
Dr Richard Brett, fellow of Lincoln Coll.
Mr Richard Fairclough, fellow of New Coll.
The Apocrypha.
Cambridge.
Dr John Duport, master of Jesus Coll.
Dr William Branthwait, master of Caius Coll.
Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Dr Samuel Ward, afterwards master of Sid. Coll.
Mr Andrew Downes, fellow of St John's Coll.
Mr John Bois, fellow of St John's Coll.
Mr Robert Ward, fellow of King's Coll.
The Four Gospels, Acts, Apocalypse.
Oxford.
Dr Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ Church.
Dr George Abbot, dean of Winchester.
Dr Richard Eedes, dean of Worcester.
Dr Giles Thompson, dean of Windsor.
Mr (Sir Henry) Saville, provost of Eton.
Dr John Perin, fellow of St John's Coll.
Dr Ravens [fellow of St John's Coll.]
Dr John Harmer, fellow of New Coll.
Romans-Jude.
Westminster.
Dr William Barlow, dean of Chester.
Dr William Hutchinson, archdeacon of St Albans.
Dr John Spencer, pres. of Corp. Chr. Coll., Ox.
Dr Roger Fenton, fellow of Pemb. Hall, Camb.
Mr Michael Rabbett, Trin. Coll., Camb.
Mr Thomas Sanderson, Balliol Coll., Oxford, D.D., 1605.
Mr William Dakins, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.
When this large body of scholars were set down to their task, an
elaborate set of rules was drawn up for their guidance, which contained
a scheme of revision as well as general directions for the execution of
their work. This is one of the very few records that remain of their
undertaking.[44]
"(1) The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called 'the
Bishops' Bible,' to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of
the original will permit. (2) The names of the prophets and the holy
writers, with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as
may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. (3) The old
ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word _Church_ not to be
translated _Congregation_, &c. (4) When a word hath divers
significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by
the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of
the place and the analogy of the faith. (5) The division of the
chapters to be altered either not at all or as little as may be, if
necessity so require. (6) No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but
only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot,
without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the
text. (7) Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall
serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another. (8) Every
particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters;
and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he
thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and
agree for their parts what shall stand. (9) As any one company hath
dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest
to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his majesty is very
careful in this point. (10) If any company, upon the review of the
book so sent, doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word
thereof, note the place, and withal send the reasons; to which if they
consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting,
which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the
work. (11) When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters
to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for
his judgment of such a place. (12) Letters to be sent from every
bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of his translation
in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the
tongues and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular
observations to the company either at Westminster, Cambridge or
Oxford. (13) The directors in each company to the deans of Westminster
and Chester for that place; and the king's professors in the Hebrew or
Greek in either university. (14) These translations to be used when
they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible; viz.
Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. (15) Besides
the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient
and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed in
translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor upon conference
with [the] rest of the heads to be overseers of the translations, as
well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule
above specified."
It is not possible to determine in how far all these rules were adhered
to. All we know of the way this noble work was carried out is contained
in the Preface, where Dr Miles Smith, in 1612 bishop of Gloucester, in
the name of his fellow-workers gives an account of the manner and spirit
in which it was done:--
"Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that the
_Septuagint_ did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they
finished it in 72 days.... The worke hath... cost the workemen, as
light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two
dayes and more... Truly (good Christian Reader), we neuer thought from
the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet
to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or
out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be
excepted against.... To that purpose there were many chosen, that were
greater in other mens eyes than in their owne, and that sought the
truth rather than their own praise.... Neither did wee thinke much to
consult the Translators or Commentators, _Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian,
Greeke_, or _Latine_, no mor the _Spanish, French, Italian_ or _Dutch_
[German]; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done,
and to bring back to the anuitl that which we had hammered: but hauing
and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for
slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length,
through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that
passe that you see."
From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied
about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being
required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at
length in 1611, the full title being as follows: The Holy Bible,
conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the
Originall tongues, & with the former Translations diligently compared
and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall comandement. Appointed to be read
in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings
most Excellent Maiestie. _Anno Dom_. 1611.[45] Since that time many
millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general
acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination
is a testimony to its excellence.
Still the work of improving and correcting went on through the
centuries, and a modern copy of the Authorized Version shows no
inconsiderable departures from the standard edition of 1611. Dr
Scrivener imputes some of those differences "to oversight and
negligence... but much the greater part of them" he holds to be
"deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men
whose very names are often unknown." (A. C. P.)
The Revised Version.
More ambitious attempts at amending the new version were not lacking,
but they all proved fruitless, until in February 1870 the Convocation of
Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision.
The report of this committee, presented in May, was adopted, to the
effect "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"; and shortly afterwards two companies
were formed for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and
New Testaments.
These companies consisted of the following:--1. For the Old
Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by Convocation._--Connop Thirlwall,
bishop of St David's (d. 1875); Alfred Ollivant (1798-1882), bishop of
Llandaff; E. Harold Browne (1811-1891), bishop of Ely; Christopher
Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln; and Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894),
bishop of Bath and Wells; Archdeacon H.J. Rose (d. 1873); William
Selwyn (1806-1875), canon of Ely and Lady Margaret professor at
Cambridge; Dr John Jebb (1805-1886), canon of Hereford; and Dr William
Kay (1820-1886). ([beta]) _Invited._--Dr William Lindsay Alexander
(1808-1884), congregational minister; Thomas Chenery (1826-1884),
professor of Arabic at Oxford, and afterwards (1877) editor of _The
Times_; Frederick Charles Cook (1810-1889), canon of Exeter; Professor
A.B. Davidson; Dr Benjamin Davies (1814-1875), professor of oriental
and classical languages at Stepney Baptist College; the Rev. A.M.
Fairbairn, congregationalist; the Rev. Frederick Field (1801-1885),
fellow of Trinity, Cambridge; Dr C.D. Ginsburg; the Rev. Dr Gotch of
Bristol; Archdeacon Benjamin Harrison (1808-1887), Hebraist; the Rev.
Stanley Leathes (1830-1900), professor of Hebrew at King's College,
London; Professor M'Gill; Canon Robert Payne Smith (1819-1895), regius
professor of divinity at Oxford, dean of Canterbury (1870); Professor
J.J.S. Perowne, afterwards bishop of Worcester; the Rev. Edward Hayes
Plumtre (1821-1891), professor of exegesis at King's College, London,
afterwards dean of Wells; Canon E. Bouverie Pusey; William Wright
(1830-1889), the orientalist; W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge. Of these
Canons Cook and Pusey declined to serve, and ten members died during
the progress of the work. The secretary of the company was Mr W. Aldis
Wright, fellow of Trinity, Cambridge.
2. For the New Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by
Convocation._--Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester; Charles J.
Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and George Moberly, bishop
of Salisbury; Dr Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), prolocutor of the
lower house of convocation; Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury, and
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, dean of Westminster; Joseph Williams Blakesley
(1808-1885), canon of Canterbury, and (1872) dean of Lincoln. ([beta])
_Invited._--The Rev. Dr Joseph Angus, president of the Stepney Baptist
College; Dr David Brown; Richard Chenevix Trench, archbishop of
Dublin; the Rev. Dr John Eadie (1810-1876), Presbyterian; the Rev.
F.J.A. Hort; the Rev. W.G. Humphry (1815-1886), vicar of St
Martin-in-the-Fields, London; the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, canon of
Ely; William Lee (1815-1883), archdeacon of Dublin, and professor of
ecclesiastical history in the university; J.B. Lightfoot, afterwards
bishop of Durham; Professor William Milligan; the Rev. William
Fieldian Moulton (1835-1898), Wesleyan biblical scholar; Dr J.H.
Newman; the Rev. Samuel Newth (1821-1898), congregationalist,
professor of ecclesiastical history at, and afterwards president of,
New College, London; Dr A. Roberts; the Rev. G. Vance Smith; Dr Robert
Scott; the Rev. F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), rector of St Gerrans,
Cornwall; Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St Andrews; Dr W.H. Thompson;
Dr S.P. Tregelles; Dr C.J. Vaughan; Canon Westcott. Of these, Dr
Thompson and Dr Newman declined to serve. Dean Alford, Dr Tregelles,
Bishop Wilberforce and Dr Eadie were removed by death. Only the first
vacancy was filled up. Dean Merivale was co-opted, and on his
resignation Professor, afterwards Archdeacon, Edwin Palmer. The Rev.
J. Troutbeck, minor canon of Westminster, acted as secretary.
Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant
denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were
formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was
regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were
carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the
version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the
published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of
English-speaking Christendom as a whole; only the Roman Catholic Church,
of the great English-speaking denominations, refused to take part in the
undertaking. The Church of England, which had put forth the version of
1611, fitly initiated the work, but for its performance most wisely
invited the help of the sister churches. The delegates of the Clarendon
Press in Oxford, and the syndics of the Pitt Press in Cambridge, entered
into a liberal arrangement with the revisers, by which the necessary
funds were provided for all their expenses. On the completion of its
work the New Testament company divided itself into three committees,
working at London, Westminster and Cambridge, for the purpose of
revising the Apocrypha.
The work of the Old Testament company was different in some important
respects from that which engaged the attention of the New Testament
company. The received Hebrew text has undergone but little emendation,
and the revisers had before them substantially the same Massoretic text
which was in the hands of the translators of 1611. It was felt that
there was no sufficient justification to make any attempt at an entire
reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions. The Old
Testament revisers were therefore spared much of the labour of deciding
between different readings, which formed one of the most important
duties of the New Testament company. But the advance in the study of
Hebrew since the early part of the 17th century enabled them to give a
more faithful translation of the received text. The value of their work
is evident, especially in Job, Ecclesiastes and the prophetical books.
It is the work of the New Testament committee which has attracted most
attention, whether for blame or praise. The critical resources at the
disposal of scholars in 1611 were very meagre, and the few early
manuscripts with which they were acquainted failed to receive the
attention they deserved. The results of modern critical methods could
not fail to make the incompleteness of the "Received Text," and of the
"Authorized Version," which was based on it, obvious. It had long been
the opinion of all competent scholars that a thorough revision was
necessary. A proposal in favour of this course was made in Convocation
in 1856, but it was not until fourteen years later that the committee
was appointed to undertake the work. The revisers' first task was to
reconstruct the Greek text, as the necessary foundation of their work.
In this difficult duty they were no doubt influenced by Westcott and
Hort's edition of the New Testament. These two scholars were members of
the committee which prepared the Revised Version, and on the question of
various readings they appear to have exercised a predominating
influence. The revisers were privately supplied with instalments of
Westcott and Hort's text as their work required them. But it is scarcely
necessary to say that the Revised Version is not the work of one or two
scholars. Different schools of criticism were represented on the
committee, and the most careful discussion took place before any
decision was formed. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the
version should represent the result of the best scholarship of the time,
applied to the work before it with constant devotion and with the
highest sense of responsibility. The changes in the Greek text of the
Authorized Version when compared with the _textus receptus_ are
numerous, but the contrast between the English versions of 1611 and 1881
is all the more striking because of the difference in the method of
translation which was adopted. The revisers aimed at the most scrupulous
faithfulness. They adopted the plan--deliberately rejected by the
translators of 1611--of always using the same English word for the same
Greek word. "They endeavoured to enable the English reader to follow the
correspondences of the original with the closest exactness, to catch the
solemn repetition of words and phrases, to mark the subtleties of
expression, to feel even the strangeness of unusual forms of speech."
The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings,
distributed over more than ten years. It was formally presented to
Convocation on May 17, 1881. The revision of the Old Testament occupied
792 days, and was finished on June 20, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did
not make its appearance until 1895.
The text of the Revised Version is printed in paragraphs, the old
division of books into chapters and verses being retained for
convenience of reference. By this arrangement the capricious divisions
of some books is avoided. Various editions of the New Version have been
published, the most complete being the edition of the whole Bible with
marginal references. These references had their origin in the work of
two small subcommittees of the revisers, but they received their present
form at the hands of a specially appointed committee. The marginal
references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of
1611 have been retained as far as possible.
The work of the revisers was received without enthusiasm. It was too
thorough for the majority of religious people. Partisans found that
havoc had been played with their proof texts. Ecclesiastical
conservatives were scandalized by the freedom with which the traditional
text was treated. The advocates of change were discontented with the
hesitating acceptance which their principles had obtained. The most
vulnerable side of the revision was that on which the mass of English
readers thought itself capable of forming a judgment. The general effect
of so many small alterations was to spoil the familiar sonorous style of
the Authorized Version. The changes were freely denounced as equally
petty and vexatious; they were, moreover, too often inconsistent with
the avowed principles of the revisers. The method of determining
readings and renderings by vote was not favourable to the consistency
and literary character of the Version. A whole literature of criticism
and apology made its appearance, and the achievement of so many years of
patient labour seemed destined to perish in a storm of resentments. On
the whole, the Revised Version weathered the storm more successfully
than might have been expected. Its considerable excellences were better
realized by students than stated by apologists. The hue and cry of the
critics largely died away, and was replaced by a calmer and juster
appreciation.
The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint
of specialists in New Testament Greek. Dr Rutherford stated the case
briefly and pointedly in the preface to his translation of the Epistle
to the Romans (London, 1900). He maintains that "the Greek of the New
Testament may never be understood as classical Greek is understood," and
accuses the revisers of distorting the meaning "by translating in
accordance with Attic idiom phrases that convey in later Greek a wholly
different sense, the sense which the earlier translators in happy
ignorance had recognized that the context demanded."
The use of the new Version has become general. Familiarity has mitigated
the harshness of the revisers' renderings; scholarship, on the whole,
has confirmed their readings. The Version has been publicly read in
parish churches both in London and in the country. In Canterbury
cathedral and Westminster Abbey it has definitely displaced the older
Version. Bishops have acquiesced and congregations approved. It is no
longer possible to maintain the plausible and damaging contention that
the Revised Bible is ill suited for public use. The Upper House of the
Convocation of Canterbury in May 1898 appointed a committee to consider
the expediency of "permitting or encouraging" the use of the Revised
Version in the public services of the Church. (H. H. H.*)
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The principal works dealing with the separate versions
have been referred to in the text of the article. The following
authorities may also be cited:
For the version as a whole: J.R. Dore, _Old Bibles_ (2nd ed., 1888);
J. Eadie, _The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the
various English Translations of Scripture_ (2 vols., 1876: the most
complete account); A. Edgar, _The Bibles of England_ (1889); H.W.
Hoare, _The Evolution of the English Bible_ (2nd ed., 1902: gives
historical setting of the Versions); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts_ (1895); J.H. Lupton, article on "English
Versions," in Hastings' _Dict. of the Bible_ (extra vol.); R. Lovett,
_The Printed English Bible, 1525-1885_ (1894); G. Milligan, _The
English Bible, a Sketch of its History_ (1895); J.I. Mombert, _English
Versions of the Bible_ (1883); F. Moulton, _The History of the English
Bible_ (2nd ed., 1884); T.H. Pattison, _History of the English Bible_
(1894); J. Stoughton, _Our English Bible, its Translations and
Translators_ [1878].
For the earlier history: J. Lewis, _History of English Translations of
the Bible_ (1818); the historical accounts prefixed to Bagster's issue
of _The English Hexapla_ and of Forshall and Madden's edition of the
_Wycliffite Versions_ (Oxford, 1850). These are all to a great extent
antiquated, their errors being repeated in almost all subsequent
accounts of the subject. The only trustworthy authority on the
Anglo-Saxon Bible is A.S. Cook's "Introduction on Old English
Translations of the Bible," in _Biblical Quotations in Old English
Prose-writers_.
For the 14th and 15th centuries: See A.C. Paues, _The Bible in the
Fourteenth Century_.
For the early printed Bibles: H. Cotton, _List of Editions of the
Bible_ (1852), _Rhemes and Doway_ (1855); F. Fry, _The Bible by
Coverdale_ (1867); _Description of the Great Bible, 1539_ (1865);
_Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament_
(1878); N. Pocock, "On the Bishops' and Genevan Bible,"
(_Bibliographer_, vols. i.-iv.); Prime Wendell, _Fifteenth-Century
Bibles_ (1888); John Wright, _Early Bibles of America_ (1893).
For the Authorized Version: F.H.A. Scrivener, _The Authorized Edition
of the English Bible_ (1884). See also R. Gell, _Essay toward the
Amendment of the Authorized Version_ (1659); W. Kilburne, _Dangerous
Errors in ... Bibles_ (1659); R.C. Trench, _On the Authorized Version
of the New Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its
revision_ (2nd ed., 1859).
For the Revised Version: J.B. Lightfoot, _On a Fresh Revision of the
English New Testament_ (London, 1871; 3rd ed. 1891); Westcott, _Some
Lessons of the Revised Version_ (London, 1897); Kennedy, _Ely
Lectures on the Revised Version_ (London, 1882). The Revisers fully
explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American
Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New
York, 1885). The case against the Revisers is ably stated in _The
Revision Revised_, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883). The literary defects
of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two
works: _The Revisers' English_ (London, 1882), and _Ecclesiastical
English_ (London, 1886). See also _Some Thoughts on the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament_, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897);
Bishop Ellicott's _Charge_ (1901). The Greek Text of the New Testament
adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by
Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881). Parallel editions of the Bible,
showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition
for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a "Two Version"
edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.
(A. C. P.; H. H. H.*)