Chapter II: Part 2

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.