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

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 _textus receptus_ 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 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."

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 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 {50} 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 A.D. 916. The Massora, it may be mentioned,

appears in two forms--the _Massora parva_ and the _Massora magna_. The

former contains the really valuable portion of the great work, viz., the

variation technically named K'ri (_read_), and placed in the margin of

the Hebrew Bibles. This was to be substituted for the corresponding

portion in the text technically named C'thib (_written_), and was

regarded by the Massoretes themselves as the true reading. The _Massora

magna_ contained the above, and other matter deemed to be of importance

in reference to the interpretation of the text.

The Revisers inform us that they have generally, though not uniformly,

rendered the C'thib in the text, and left the K'ri in the margin, 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.

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

this is generally considered erroneous in excess, 900 being probably much

nearer the true estimate.

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.

This recognition of the critical importance of the Ancient Versions by

the Revisers, though 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 {53}, and of other versions to which reference

would have to be made in any great critical attempt, such as a revision

of the _textus receptus_ of the Old Testament.

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 Dr.

Green and Dr. Schaff in a circular letter addressed to distinguished

Hebrews in Germany and elsewhere. The answers are returned in German

{55}, 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.

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.

II. We may now turn to the New Testament, and to the revision of the

_textus receptus_ of the New Testament which our rules necessitated, and

which formed a very important and, it may be added, a very anxious part

of our revision.

And here, at the very outset, one general observation is absolutely

necessary.

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.

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, 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 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.

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 _from_ 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 _from_ ([Greek text]) is maintained,

in spite of the clever arguments 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.

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 {59}. 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.

I observe that the above-named writer expresses his satisfaction that the

Revised Version has not superseded the Authorised Version in our Churches

{60a}, 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 {60b}, and that "more than half of their

brother members of the Committee had given no special attention to the

subject." Now, 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.

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 _subsequently_ put forward by Dr.

Hort in the introductory volume to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,

to the clever and instructive genealogical method, and to the 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 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.

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 Graece, cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris

manu scriptis collecto. Stuttgart, 1898." This edition is issued by the

Wurtemberg Bible Society, and will, as I hear, not improbably be adopted

by our own Bible Society as their Greek Testament of the future.

The reason why I prefer these two texts 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.

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.

To do this, it will be necessary to refer 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.

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

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.

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 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 _was_ 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 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.

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 _textus ab omnibus receptus_.

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 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.

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 the

University Presses (see p. 66), our page was now available.

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.

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 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."

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

That the Revised Version has been faithfully executed, will I hope be

shown fully 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

Wurtemberg Bible Society.

I have now, I trust, fairly shown the independence of the Revisers' Text,

and have, not without reason, complained of my friend Provost Salmon's

estimate of its dependence 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.

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 instance, in which, in the debatable question whether

there really was an authoritative revision of the so-called Syrian text

at about A.D. 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian revision as a _vera

causa_, 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 _Companion

to the Greek Testament_ 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.

ADDRESS IV

NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS

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.

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 God has been pleased to reveal His truth to the

children of men.

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 (_a_) where they did not agree with

it as to the meaning or construction of a word or sentence; (_b_) where

it was necessary, for the sake of uniformity, to render such parallel

passages as were identical in Hebrew by the same English words; (_c_)

where the English of the Authorised Version was liable to be

misunderstood by reason of its being archaic or obscure; (_d_) where the

rendering of an earlier English version seemed preferable; and (_e_)

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.

These principles, which I have been careful to specify in the exact words

of the Revisers, will appear to every impartial reader to be 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.

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.

The first particular is the important question of the rendering of the

word "JEHOVAH." 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 "LORD" or "GOD," 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 from the decision of the English

Company, and has adopted the proper name wherever it occurs in the Hebrew

text for "the LORD" and "GOD." 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.

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, as in the case of the Hebrew term

_Asherah_ (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 "Sheol" (corresponding to the Greek term

"Hades"), variously rendered in the Authorised Version by the words

"grave," "pit," and "hell," the Revisers have adopted in the historical

books the first or second words with a marginal note, "Heb. _Sheol_," 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.

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 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.

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--_A Companion to the Revised Old Testament_. 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It is difficult to say much on the Revised Version of the Book of Psalms,

as Coverdale's Version, as we have it in our Prayer Book, so 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 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.

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 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 changes

have not maintained this splendid utterance at a uniform height of

sustained and eloquent vigour.

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.

II. I now pass onward to the consideration of the renderings in the

Revised Version of the New Testament.

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 {96}, now, alas,

no longer with us, of which I shall speak fully in my next Address.

What I shall now do will be to show that the principles on which 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, 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 {97}. 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.

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.

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

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

{98a};" "Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was the

central aim of the Revisers {98b}." Faithfulness, but to what?

Certainly not to "the sense and spirit of the original {98b}," 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

The American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the reading in

question with their English brethren; and the same too is the judgement

of Professor Nestle in his carefully edited Greek Testament to which I

have already referred.

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 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.

But we must now pass onward to considerations very closely affecting the

renderings of the Revised Version of the Greek Testament.

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.

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 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.

First, then, as to the general knowledge which the revisers had of the

character and peculiarities of the Greek of the New Testament.

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 {106}."

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 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 enter into questions that did not then

appear to bear directly on our engrossing and responsible work.

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.

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, 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.

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.

The second work is the now well-translated "Bible Studies" of Dr.

Deissmann of Heidelberg {109}. 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," 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 {110a}." This avowal must,

to some extent, affect our full acceptance of all the results arrived at

in this striking and laborious work.

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 {110b}. 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 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 _translations_ 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.

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 {111} that the

books of the New Testament form a special group _to be primarily

explained by itself_. Greatly 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) {112} but of--Life.

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 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?"

To this more limited form of the question I feel no difficulty in

replying, that I am fully and firmly persuaded that it would _not_ 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 [Greek text] with the subjunctive in the place of

the infinitive, the displacement of [Greek text], the interchange of

[Greek text] and [Greek text], of [Greek text] and [Greek text], the use

of compound forms without any corresponding increase of meaning, the

extended usage of the aorist, the wider sphere 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.

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 {114} would seem to suggest a less literal form of translation.

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 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.

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 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.

ADDRESS V.

PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 _a priori_ 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 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.

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.

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

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 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?

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 {122}--"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, even when a few doubting voices were heard

{123}, 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"?

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--_where such use is desired by clergy and

people_. 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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

But what shall we regard as due preparation in the case of pastor and

people? This question, I can well believe, has already risen 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, 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.

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 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, _into_ (not _in_) _the

name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost_, and the change in Rom. vi. 23,

_eternal life in_ (not _through_) _Christ Jesus our Lord_, thus speaks

from his inmost soul: "Am I wrong in saying that he who has mastered the

meaning of those two prepositions now truly rendered--'_into_ the name,'

'_in_ 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 _wrote_, 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 in the first century--that, in those passages,

when St. Matthew wrote [Greek text] he did mean _into_; and that when St.

Paul used [Greek text], he did mean _in_, in the simplest sense of the

word?

But to the devout Christian we have a far deeper answer than the answer

we have just considered.

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

* * * * *

[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_s._ 6_d._ net, and of the

Apocrypha separately, at 7_s._ 6_d._, 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.]

OXFORD: HORACE HART

PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

Works by the same Author.

ARE WE TO MODIFY FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE? Small post 8vo, cloth boards,

1_s._

CHRISTUS COMPROBATOR; or, The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament.

Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 2_s._

FOUNDATIONS OF SACRED STUDY. Part I. Small post 8vo, cloth boards,

2_s._; Part II, 2_s._ 6_d._

MODERN UNBELIEF: its Principles and Characteristics. Small post 8vo,

cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._

OUR REFORMED CHURCH AND ITS PRESENT TROUBLES. Small post 8vo, cloth

boards, 6_d._