Chapter III: Part 3

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and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of a familiar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal being withdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, and not from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness.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._

SALUTARY DOCTRINE. Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._

SPIRITUAL NEEDS IN COUNTRY PARISHES. Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._

THE BEING OF GOD (Six Addresses on). Small post 8vo, cloth boards, 1_s._ 6_d._

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.
LONDON: NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.

Footnotes:

{6} The following Resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury on Feb. 10, 1899, after the presentation of the Report of the Committee (well worthy of being read) by the Bishop of Rochester. The Report is numbered 329, and, with other Reports of Convocation, is sold by the National Society:--

"That in the opinion of this House the use of the Revised Version at
the lectern in the public service of the Church, where this is
desired by clergy and people, is not open to any well-founded
objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of
Holy Scripture."

{10a} Among others may be named the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1855 on Paragraph Bibles, in which it was said that it was now high time for another revision (p. 429); the _Christian Remembrancer_ for 1856 on the Revision of the Authorised Version (an interesting article); the _Quarterly Review_ for 1863, intimating that as yet we were not ripe for any authorised text or translation; the _Edinburgh Review_ for 1865; and the _Contemporary Review_ for 1868, a careful and elaborate article, contending that the work must be done by a Commission.

{10b} In February, 1856, when Canon Selwyn gave notice of proposing a petition on the subject to the Upper House. The proposal in a somewhat different form a year afterwards was disposed of by a characteristic amendment of Archdeacon Denison.

{10c} On July 22, 1856, Mr. Heywood, one of the members, I think, for North Lancashire, in rather an interesting speech, moved for an Address to the Crown to issue a Royal Commission on the subject. The motion was rejected, Sir George Grey expressing his conviction that the feeling of the country was not in accordance with the motion.

{12} Preface to the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel according to St. John by Five Clergymen, p. xii. As I remark afterwards, this preface proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatly helped the cause. The book has long since gone out of print, but if any reader of this note should come across it, this preface will be found well worth reading, as it will show what was in the minds of many beside the Five Clergymen five and forty years ago.

{13} See Schaff, _Companion to Greek Testament and English version_, p. 367, note (New York, 1883).

{21} The _Expositor_ for October, 1892, pp. 241-255. The article was answered by me in the same periodical two months later.

{22} The account of the discussion in the Convocation of York (Feb. 23, 1870) will be found in _The Guardian_ of March 2, 1870. In the comments of this paper on the action or rather inaction of the Northern Convocation a very unfavourable opinion was expressed, in reference to the manner in which the Southern Convocation had been treated. But these things have long since been forgotten.

{35} It may be interesting to give this list, as it slightly affects matter that will be alluded to afterwards in reference to the Greek text. The attendances were as follows: The Chairman, 405; Dr. Scrivener, 399; Prebendary Humphry, 385; Principal Newth, 373; Prof. Hort, 362; Dean Bickersteth (Prolocutor), 352; Dean Scott, 337; Prof. Westcott, 304; Dean Vaughan, 302; Dean Blakesley, 297; Bishop Lightfoot, 290; Archdeacon Lee, 283; Dr. Moulton, 275; Archdeacon Palmer, 255; Dean Stanley, 253; Dr. Vance Smith, 245; Principal Brown, 209; Principal Angus, 199; Prof. Milligan, 182; Prof. Kennedy, 165; Dr. Eadie, 135; Bishop Moberly, 121; Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), 109; Dr. Roberts, 94; Archbishop Trench, 63; Dean Merivale (resigned early), 19; Dean Alford (died soon after commencement), 16; Bishop Wilberforce, 1.