_October_, 1901.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
ADDRESS I. EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION 5
,, II. LATER HISTORY OF REVISION 17
,, III. HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT 48
,, IV. NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS 81
,, V. PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION 117
ADDRESS I.
EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION.
As there now seem to be sufficient grounds for thinking that ere long the
Revised Version of Holy Scripture will obtain a wider circulation and
more general use than has hitherto been accorded to it, it seems
desirable that the whole subject of the Revised Version, and its use in
the public services of the Church, should at last be brought formally
before the clergy and laity, not only of this province, but of the whole
English Church.
Twenty years have passed away since the appearance of the Revised Version
of the New Testament, and the presentation of it by the writer of these
pages to the Convocation of Canterbury on May 17, 1881. Just four more
years afterwards, viz. on April 30, 1885, the Revised Version of the Old
Testament was laid before the same venerable body by the then Bishop of
Winchester (Bp. Harold Browne), and, similarly to the Revised Version of
the New Testament, was published simultaneously in this country and
America. It was followed, after a somewhat long interval, by the Revised
Version of the Apocrypha, which was laid before Convocation by the writer
of these pages on February 12, 1896.
The revision of the Authorised Version has thus been in the hands of the
English-speaking reader sixteen years, in the case of the Canonical
Scriptures, and five years in the case of the Apocrypha--periods of time
that can hardly be considered insufficient for deciding generally,
whether, and to what extent, the Revised Version should be used in the
public services of the Church.
I have thus thought it well, especially after the unanimous resolution of
the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, three years ago {6},
and the very recent resolution of the House of Laymen, to place before
you the question of the use of the Revised Version in the public services
of the Church, as the ultimate subject of this charge. I repeat, as the
ultimate subject, for no sound opinion on the public use of this version
can possibly be formed unless some general knowledge be acquired, not
only of the circumstances which paved the way for the revision of the
time-honoured version of 1611, but also of the manner in which the
revision was finally carried out. We cannot properly deal with a
question so momentous as that of introducing a revised version of God's
Holy Word into the services of the Church, without knowing, at least in
outline, the whole history of the version which we are proposing to
introduce. This history then I must now place before you from its very
commencement, so far as memory and a nearly life-long connexion with the
subject enable me to speak.
The true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, more
particularly, of the revision of the New Testament, must be regarded as
the grammar written by a young academic teacher, George Benedict Winer,
as far back as 1822, bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language of
the New Testament. It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, and
indeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed in
commentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. It met with at first the fate of all assaults on prevailing
unscientific procedures, but its value and its truth were soon
recognized. The volume passed through several successively improved
editions, until in 1855 the sixth edition was reached, and issued with a
new and interesting preface by the then distinguished and veteran writer.
This edition formed the basis of the admirable and admirably supplemented
translation of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, which
was published in 1870, passed through a second edition six years
afterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard grammar,
in an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this day.
The claim that I have put forward for this remarkable book as the
fountain-head of revision can easily be justified when we call to memory
how very patently the volume, in one or another of its earlier editions,
formed the grammatical basis of the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer,
and, here in England, of the commentary of Alford, and of critical and
grammatical commentaries on some of St. Paul's Epistles with which my own
name was connected. It was to Winer that we were all indebted for that
greater accuracy of interpretation of the Greek Testament which was
recognized and welcomed by readers of the New Testament at the time I
mention, and produced effects which had a considerable share in the
gradual bringing about of important movements that almost naturally
followed.
What came home to a large and increasing number of earnest and
truth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this--that there were
inaccuracies and errors in the current version of the Holy Scriptures,
and especially of the New Testament, which plainly called for
consideration and correction, and further brought home to very many of us
that this could never be brought about except by an authoritative
revision.
This general impression spread somewhat rapidly; and soon after the
middle of the last century it began to take definite shape. The subject
of the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament found a
place in the religious and other periodicals of the day {10a}, and as the
time went on was the subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded to
even in Convocation {10b} and Parliament {10c}. As yet however there had
been no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by its
numerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally entertained as to the
form that a revision might ultimately take. It was feared by many that
any authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance and
influence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of Holy
Scripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions that were
prevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the cause of sound
religion in our Church and in our nation.
There was thus a real danger, unless some forward step was quickly and
prudently taken, that the excitement might gradually evaporate, and the
movement for revision might die out, as has often been the case in regard
of the Prayer Book, into the old and wonted acquiescence of the past.
It was just at this critical time that an honoured and influential
churchman, who was then the popular and successful secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. Ernest Hawkins,
afterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and persuaded a few of us,
who had the happiness of being his friends, to combine and publish a
version of one of the books of the New Testament which might practically
demonstrate to friends and to opponents what sort of a revision seemed
desirable under existing circumstances. After it had been completed we
described it "as a _tentamen_, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality,
inviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the same
kind, calling the attention of the Church to the many and anxious
questions involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular
language, and offering some help towards the settlement of those
questions {12}."
The portion of Scripture selected was the Gospel according to St. John.
Those who undertook the revision were five in number:--Dr. Barrow, the
then Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford; Dr. Moberly, afterwards
Bishop of Salisbury; Rev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury;
Rev. W. G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields; and lastly, the
writer of this charge. Mr. Ernest Hawkins, busy as he was, acted to a
great extent as our secretary, superintended arrangements, and encouraged
and assisted us in every possible manner. Our place of meeting was the
library of our hospitable colleague Mr. Humphry. We worked in the
greatest possible harmony, and happily and hopefully concluded our
Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel of St. John in the month
of March, 1857.
Our labours were introduced by a wise and attractive preface, written
mainly by Dr. Moberly, in the lucid, reverent, and dignified language
that marked everything that came from the pen of the late Bishop of
Salisbury.
The effect produced by this _tentamen_ was indisputably great. The work
itself was of course widely criticized, but for the most part favourably
{13}. The principles laid down in the preface were generally considered
reasonable, and the possibilities of an authoritative revision distinctly
increased. The work in fact became a kind of object lesson.
It showed plainly that there _were_ errors in the Authorised Version that
needed correction. It further showed that their removal and the
introduction of improvements in regard of accuracy did not involve,
either in quantity or quality, the changes that were generally
apprehended. And lastly, it showed in its results that _scholars_ of
different habits of thought could combine in the execution of such a work
without friction or difficulty.
In regard of the Greek text but little change was introduced. The basis
of our translation was the third edition of Stephens, from which we only
departed when the amount of external evidence in favour of a different
reading was plainly overwhelming. As we ourselves state in the preface,
"our object was to revise a version, not to frame a text." We should
have obscured this one purpose if we had entered into textual criticism.
Such was the tentative version which prepared the way for authoritative
revision.
More need not be said on this early effort. The version of the Gospel of
St. John passed through three editions. The Epistles to the Romans and
Corinthians appeared in 1858, and the first three of the remaining
Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) in 1861. The third
edition of the Revision of the Authorised Version of St. John was issued
in 1863, with a preface in which the general estimate of the revision was
discussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative procedure
in reference to the whole question. As our little band had now been
reduced to four, and its general aim and object had been realized, we did
not deem it necessary to proceed with a work which had certainly helped
to remove most of the serious objections to authoritative revision. Our
efforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were then
appearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, by the
important work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, Trench, entitled "On
the Authorised Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent
proposals for its revision." This appeared in 1858. After the close of
our tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as they may be
termed) of the movement did but little except, from time to time, confer
with one another on the now yearly improving prospects of authoritative
revision. In 1869 Dean Alford published a small handy revised version of
the whole of the Greek Testament, and, a short time afterwards, I
published a small volume on the "Revision of the English Version," in
which I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and vigorous
translation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised Version, and how
little of this would ever be likely to disappear in any authoritatively
revised version of the future. Some estimate also was made of the amount
of changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the Gospels. A
few months later, a very valuable volume ("On a Fresh Revision of the New
Testament") was published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot,
which appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of a
revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word was about to be
realized.
All now was ready for a definite and authoritative commencement. Of
this, and of the later history of Revision, a brief account will be given
in the succeeding Address.
ADDRESS II.
LATER HISTORY OF REVISION.
We are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative and
preparatory passed into definite and authoritative realization.
The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of
the Convocation of Canterbury. The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the
Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be
desirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the
House, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the
indirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence
of the Northern Convocation. The resolution was as follows:
"That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer
with any committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the
Northern Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of
the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal
notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors,
whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the
translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due
investigation be found to exist."
In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by
the insertion of the words "Old and," so as to include both Testaments,
and, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once
sent down to the Lower House. After debate it was accepted by them, and,
having been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the
arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.
Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far as
plainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thus
undertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocation
during its long and eventful history, followed every course, adopted
every expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the great
work it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.
It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with the
primary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed of
eight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regular
rule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, to
confer with the Convocation of York. The members of the Upper House were
as follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids
(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (Harold
Browne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon after
withdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself.
The members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth, Dean
of Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley),
and Lincoln (Jeremie); the Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter
(Freeman), and Rochester (Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons
Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De
Winton.
Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of
Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five
resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them,
were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in
the Lower House:
"1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version
of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.
2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal
renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to
insert in the text of the Authorised Version.
3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new
translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except
where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change
is necessary.
4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language
employed in the existing version be closely followed.
5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of
its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at
liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to
whatever nation or religious body they may belong."
These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by
the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body. The second and third
rules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the
emendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of
revision. This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive,
but in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by
Convocation. A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop
of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known
periodical {21} that the revisers "largely exceeded their instructions,
and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow."
This is a very grave charge, but can it be substantiated? The second and
third rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt necessity
on the part of "the most competent scholars," and these last-mentioned
must surely be understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for
the work. In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of
Convocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was to be
faithfulness to the original. All then that can justly be said in
reference to the Revisers is this,--not that they exceeded their
instructions (a very serious charge), but that their estimate of what
constituted faithfulness, and involved the necessity of change, was, from
time to time, in the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated.
Such language however as that used in reference to the changes made by
the Revisers as "unnecessary and uninstructive alterations," and
"irritating trivialities," was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the
judgement arrived at.
But to proceed. On the presentation of the Report it was stated that the
committee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, as
no committee had been appointed by them. It was commonly supposed that
the Northern President (Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the
two Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very different
view {22}, as our President informed us that he had received a
communication from the Convocation of York to the effect that--"The
Authorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the
Established Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the
English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and
that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to
time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text.
That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a
committee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation
of Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified."
This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the Northern
Convocation. We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were many
able and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we should
have heartily welcomed. Delay, however, was now out of the question.
The working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the
Convocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed
revision.
The course of our proceedings was then as follows:
After the Report of the committee had been accepted by the Upper House,
and communicated to the Lower House, the following resolution was
unanimously adopted by the Upper House (May 3, 1870), and in due course
sent down to the Lower House:
"That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to
Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in the
Report now adopted. That the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids,
Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely, Salisbury, Lincoln, Bath and
Wells, be members of the committee. That the committee be empowered
to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from
their biblical scholarship to aid them in their work."
This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that as
this was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact an
executive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinary
committees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House,
but simply an equal number. This request, though obviously a very
reasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to
without some debate and even remonstrance. This, however, was overcome
and quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of the
Prolocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by the
Lower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans of
Canterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford
(Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed
as members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.
This Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of choosing experts,
and, out of them and their own members, forming two Companies, the one
for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the
other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament.
Rules had to be drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying
out in detail of the whole of the proposed work. In this work it may be
supposed that considerable difficulty would have been found in the choice
of biblical scholars in addition to those already appointed by
Convocation. This, however, did not prove to be the case. I was at that
time acting as a kind of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of
Dr. Moulton and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of
distinguished biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in
England and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be made.
When we met together finally to choose, there was thus no lack of
suitable names.
In regard of the many rules that had to be made for the orderly carrying
out of the work I prepared, after careful conference with the Bishop of
Winchester, a draft scheme which, so far as I remember, was in the sequel
substantially adopted by what I have termed the Permanent Committee of
Convocation. When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870,
the names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed upon,
and invitations at once sent out. The members of the Committee had
already been assigned to their special companies; viz. to the Old
Testament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who
soon after resigned), and Bath and Wells; and from the Lower House,
Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New
Testament Company, the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and
Salisbury; and from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of
Canterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.
Those invited to join the Old Testament were as follows:--Dr. W. L.
Alexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr.
B. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch,
Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne
Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr.
Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and
valuable secretary of the Company.
Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.
Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows:--Dr.
Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie,
Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee,
Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman,
Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol
College), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth),
Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.
Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health
and preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New
Testament, was unable to attend. It should be here mentioned that soon
after the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of
Westminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Company
as their secretary. A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigable
secretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for the
great and responsible work.
On the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out of the
revision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were all
duly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear and
open for the commencement of the work. These rules (copies of which will
be found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto
issued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the
fundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have been
already specified.
The first of these subsidiary rules was as follows:--"To introduce as few
alterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version
consistently with faithfulness." This rule must be read in connexion
with the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I have
already made on those rules.
The second of the rules of the committee was as follows:--"To limit, as
far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of
the Authorised and earlier English versions." This rule was carefully
attended to in its reference to the Authorised Version. I do not however
remember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that we
often fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions. They
were always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there
were differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings of
the ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and
occasionally of the Gothic and Armenian. To these, however, the rule
makes no allusion.
The third rule speaks for itself:--"Each Company to go twice over the
portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and
on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided."
The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and is
an amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule. The
rule of the committee is as follows:--"That the text to be adopted be
that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when
the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version
was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin." The subject of the
text is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows:--"To make or
retain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company
except _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on the
first revision to decide by simple majorities."
The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I do
not know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was very
rarely acted upon:--"In every case of proposed alteration that may have
given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next
meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those
present at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice
for the next meeting." The only occasion on which I can remember this
rule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one. At
the close of a long day's work we found ourselves differing on the
renderings of "tomb" or "sepulchre" in one of the narratives of the
Resurrection. This was easily and speedily settled the following
morning.
The seventh rule was as follows:--"To revise the headings of chapters and
pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation." This rule was very
carefully attended to except as regards headings of chapters and pages.
These were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of
direct interpretation, that both Companies agreed to leave this portion
of the work to some committee of the two University Presses that they
might afterwards think fit to appoint. Small as the work might seem to
be if only confined to the simple revision of the existing headings, the
time it would have taken up, if undertaken by the Companies, would
certainly have been considerable. I revised, on my own account, the
headings of the chapters in St. Matthew, and was surprised to find how
much time was required to do accurately and consistently what might have
seemed a very easy and inconsiderable work.
The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarely
acted upon: "To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered
desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or
abroad, for their opinions." How far this was acted on by the Old
Testament Company I do not know. In regard of the New Testament Company
the only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule,
was in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventh
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In this particular case we sent our
sheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of us
knew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nautically
correct. I believe this friendly and competent authority did not find
anything amiss. It has sometimes been said that it would have been
better, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule had
been more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English and
alterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our more
distinguished literary men. It may be so; though I much doubt whether in
matters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominant
arbiter. In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much could
have been effected by appealing to the ears of others. At any rate we
preferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards
mention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been
improved upon.
The concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: "That the
work of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in
order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language
as possible."
All preliminaries were now settled. The invitations were issued, and,
with the exceptions of Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were
readily accepted. Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor
Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added to those
already mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament Company, and, in
less than a month after the meeting of the committee on May 25, both
Companies had entered upon their responsible work. On June 22, 1870,
both Companies, after a celebration of the Holy Communion, previously
announced by Dean Stanley as intended to be administered by him in
Westminster Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII, commenced the
long-looked-for revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word.
The Old Testament Company commenced their work in the Chapter Library;
the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber.
The number of the members in each Company was very nearly the same, viz.
twenty-seven in the Old Testament Company, and, in nominal attendance,
twenty-six in the New Testament Company. In the former Company, owing to
the longer time found necessary for the work (fourteen years), there were
more changes in the composition of the Company than in the case of the
latter Company, which completed its work three years and a half before
its sister Company. At the close of the work on the New Testament
(1880), the numbers in each Company were twenty-six and twenty-five; but
owing to various reasons, and especially the distance of many of the
members from London, the number in actual and regular attendance was
somewhat reduced as the years went onward. How it fared with the Old
Testament Company I cannot precisely state. Bishop Harold Browne, after
his accession to the See of Winchester, was only able to attend twice or
three times after the year 1875. In that year Bishop Thirlwall died, and
Bishop Ollivant ceased to attend, but remained a corresponding member
till his death in 1882. Vacancies, I am informed, were filled up till
October 1875, after which date no new members were added. The Company,
however, worked to the very end with great devotion and assiduity. The
revision occupied 794 days, and was completed in eighty-five sessions,
the greater part of which were for ten days each, at about six hours a
day.
I can speak a little more exactly in reference to the New Testament
Company. The time was shorter, and the changes in the composition of the
Company were fewer. At the end of the work a record was made out of the
attendances of the individual members {35}, from which it was easy to
arrive at the average attendance, which for the whole time was found to
be as much as sixteen each day. The number of sessions was 101 of four
days each, and one of three days, making a total of 407 days in all.
More than 1,200 days were thus devoted to the work of the revision of the
Authorised Versions of both Testaments. The first revision, in the case
of the New Testament lasted about six years; the second, two years and a
half. The remaining two years were spent in the consideration of various
details and reserved questions, and especially the consideration of the
suggestions, on our second revision, of the American Revisers, of whose
work and connexion with the English Revisers it will now be convenient to
speak.
* * * * *
The idea of a connexion with America in the great work of revision was
nearly as early as the movements in Convocation of which an account has
been given. It appears that, in the session of Convocation in July,
1870, it was moved in the Lower House by Lord Alwyne Compton (afterwards
and now Bishop of Ely) that the committee of Convocation should be
instructed to invite the co-operation of some American divines. This was
at once agreed to by both Houses, and measures were taken to open
communications with America. The correspondence was opened by the acting
Chairman of the New Testament Company (the present writer) in a letter to
Dr. Angus (dated July 20, 1870 {36}) who was about to visit the United
States, empowering him to prepare the way for definite action on the part
of American scholars and divines. This he did in a letter ("Historical
Account," p. 31) sent round to American scholars, and especially by
communication with Dr. Philip Schaff of the Bible House at New York, who,
from the first, had taken the deepest interest in the movement. This
active and enterprising scholar at once took up the matter, and operated
so successfully that, as he himself tells us in his valuable and accurate
"Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version" (New York,
1883), a committee of about thirty members was formally organized Dec. 7,
1871, and entered upon active work on Oct. 4, 1872, after the first
revision of the Synoptical Gospels had been forwarded by the New
Testament Company.
Our Old Testament Company was no less active and co-operative. As they
tell us in the Preface prefixed to their revision, "the first revision of
the several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the consideration
of the American Revisers, and, except in the case of the Pentateuch
(which had been twice gone through prior to co-operation) the English
Company had the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions before they
proceeded to the second revision. The second revision was in like manner
forwarded to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Revisers
were in the hands of the English Company at their final review." Both
our English Companies bear hearty testimony to the value derived from the
co-operation. In the case of the New Testament Company, the "care,
vigilance, and accuracy" which marked the work of their American brethren
is distinctly specified.
But little more need be said of the American Companies. They were soon
fully organized, and, so far as can be judged by the results of their
work, carefully and judiciously chosen. The Old Testament Company
consisted of fifteen members, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, being
Chairman: the New Testament Committee consisted of sixteen members, three
of those who had at first accepted having been obliged, from ill-health
and stress of local duties, to resign. Dr. Woolsey, Ex-President of Yale
College, was Chairman, and Bishop Lee, of the Diocese of Delaware, one of
the most faithful and valuable participators in the work, a member of the
Company. Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York, was also a member, and was President of
the whole undertaking, Dr. George Day of Yale College, a member of the
Old Testament Company, being the general secretary. The two Companies
met every month (except July and August) in two rooms in the Bible House,
New York, but without any connexion with the Bible Society, which, as in
England, could only circulate the Authorised Version.
The American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included representatives of
nine different denominations, viz. Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and, to the extent of one
member, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Society of Friends. The Episcopal
Church of America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the request
that they would take part in the revision: this was declined. The
American Church however, as we have already shown, was not wholly
unrepresented in the work. The whole Committee was obviously much more
mixed than the English Committee; but it must not be forgotten that
though the English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, and
Episcopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly one-third of
the two Companies were not members of the Church of England. If we
assume that each Company consisted at any given time of twenty-five
members, which, as we have seen, would be approximately correct, the
non-Episcopal members will be found to have been not less than sixteen,
viz. seven Presbyterians, four Independents or Congregationalists, two
Baptists, two Wesleyans, and one Unitarian. Be this however as it may,
it is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God the
Holy Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the work both here
and in America. Here, as is well known, this was the case; and in
America, to quote one only out of many similar witnesses, one who was
himself a reviser, and the only pastor in the Company (the Old Testament
Company), thus gives his experience, "Never, even once, did the _odium
theologicum_ appear. Nothing was said at any time that required
retraction or apology {41}."
This brief notice of our American brethren may close with one further
comment. Their work began, like ours, with reliance on financial aid
from the many who would be sure to be interested in such an important and
long-desired work. Help in our case was at once readily proffered, but
very soon was found not to be necessary, owing to our disposal of
copyright to the Presses of the two Universities. With the American
Revisers it was otherwise. During the whole twelve years all the
necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and other
accessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed by
liberal donors from among the friends of biblical revision. There
remained, however, a grave difficulty. It was plainly impossible that
such distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companies
could simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent over to
them without being recognized as fellow revisers in the full sense of the
words. How, however, formally to establish this parity of position was
found to be very difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, who
had trade rights which had properly to be guarded. The result was much
friendly negotiation for several months, but without any definite
adjustment {42a}. At last, by the wise and conciliatory action of the
Presses an agreement was arrived at in August, 1877 {42b}, by which we on
this side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the various
stages of our work to our American brethren and carefully to consider all
their suggestions, but also to sanction the publication in every copy of
the revision of a list of all the important passages, in regard of text
and renderings, upon which the English and American Revisers could not
finally agree. The American Revisers on their part undertook not to
publish any edition of their own for fourteen years.
The fourteen years have now passed away, but prior to the expiration of
the time the long-needed marginal references were completed, and in
September, 1898, were attached to the pages of all the larger English
copies of the Revised Version of the Holy Scripture, with a short account
of the sources from which they were derived, and of the circumstances of
their delayed publication. As they were somewhat closely connected with
the labours of two of the members of the New Testament Company, and had
received the general approval of that Company, I had real pleasure in
presenting to both Houses of Convocation on Feb. 10, 1899, the completed
body of references, and, in them, the very last portion of every part of
the work of the Company with which I had so long been connected.
The appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it enabled the
Universities to acquire copyright for any of the editions _with these
references_ which they might publish, or cause to be published in
America. The University Press of Oxford has, I know, acted on this
right, but whether in conjunction with the Cambridge University Press or
independently I am not able to say. The right at any rate remains, and
in the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may now
suppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of altered editions of
the revision, which from time to time might be brought forward by
irresponsible publishers {44}.
One subject still remains to be noticed in this portion of my address
which cannot be passed over--the revision of the Apocrypha. This the
English revisers were pledged to the University Presses to complete,
before our connexion with them could be rightfully concluded. This
revision, as we know, has been completed, though perhaps not in a manner
that can be considered as completely satisfactory, owing to the want of a
co-ordinating authority. The arrangement, of which a full and clear
account will be found in the preface to the published volume, was briefly
as follows. On March 21, 1879, as the New Testament Company was fast
approaching the completion of its labours, it was agreed that the Company
should be divided into three portions, each consisting of eight members,
to which the names of the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Companies
were to be respectively assigned. The portion of the work that each of
the three Companies was to take was settled by lot. To the London
Company, of which I was a member, the book of Ecclesiasticus was
assigned; to the Westminster Company, the first book of Maccabees, and
subsequently the books Tobit and Judith; and to the Cambridge Company,
the second book of Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.
On the completion of their work, the Old Testament Company assigned to a
special committee chosen out of their number the remaining books of the
Apocrypha, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, the remainder of Esther, Baruch, Song of
the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of
Manasses.
It was agreed that each Company and the above-named committee should go
through their work twice, but without the two-thirds condition, and that
each body should send its work when completed round to the rest. The
times, however, at which the portions were completed were by no means,
even approximately, the same. The London Company completed its work in
May, 1883. The Westminster Company finished the first book of Maccabees
in November, 1881, and the books of Tobit and Judith in October, 1882.
The Cambridge Company completed its revision of the second book of
Maccabees in December, 1889, and of the Book of Wisdom, which underwent
three revisions, in November, 1891. The revision of the remaining books,
undertaken by the Old Testament Company, does not seem to have been
completed till even two or three years later. This interval of ten or
twelve years involved in some of the books, especially in reference to
Ecclesiasticus, the clear necessity for further revision. This compelled
me, with the help of my valued friend Dr. Moulton, to go over the work of
my former Company on my own responsibility, my coadjutors in the work
having been either called away by death or too seriously ill to help me.
It was thus with some sense of relief that, on the request of those
connected with the publication of the volume, I presented the Revised
Version of the Apocrypha to the two Houses of Convocation on February 12,
1896.
The rise and progress of the desire for a revision of the Authorised
Version of Holy Scripture has now been set forth as fully as the limits
of these Addresses permit. What now remains to be specified is what may
be called the internal history of this Revision, or, in other words, the
nature and procedure of the work, with such concluding comments as the
circumstances of the present may appear to suggest.
ADDRESS III.
HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT.
We now pass from what may be called the outward history of the Revision
to the inward nature and character of the work of the Revisers, and may
naturally divide that work into two portions--their labours as regards
the original text, and their labours in regard of rendering and
translation.