Versions (Hastings' Dictionary)

259 laying the attempt.’* On March lst, 1856, Canon Selwyn brought the matter before the notice of the Lower House of Convocation, and followed this up, in the autumn of the same year, by the pamphlet just cited. In July 1856 Mr. James eywood, M.P.

for North Lancashire, moved in the House of Commons an address to the Crown, ‘praying that Her Majesty would appoint a Roya] Commission of learned men, to consider of such amendments of the authorized version of the Bible as had been already proposed, and to receive suggestions from all persons who might be willin to offer them, and to report the amendments whic they might be prepared to recommend.’+ After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn.

But its author did not let the subject drop; publishing The Bible and its Revisers in 1857, and the State of the Authorized Bible Revision in 1860. In 1857 a good pattern of what such a revision should be was set in the publication of Zhe Gospel according to St. John... revised by five clergymen. In 1863 a remark by the Speaker of the House of Commons (J.

Evelyn Denison, afterwards Lord Ossington), suggested the undertaking of the ‘Speaker’s’ Commentary, one express object of which was ‘a revision of the translation.’ Not to dwell longer on preliminary matters, by the spring of 1870 things were ripe for action. On February 10th of that year, the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. S.

Wilberforce), anticipating a motion which Canon Selwyn had prepared to intro- duce into the Lower House, moved in the Upper House of Convocation of the Southern Province, ‘that a Committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer with any Committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the Northern Provines; to report upon the desirable- ness of a revision of the AV of the NT, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those pas- sages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translation made from the same, shall, on due investigation, be found to exist.?

t The Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. A. Ollivant) carried an amendment, to include the OT in the terms of the motion. When the motion, thus amendcd, had been agreed to, it was sent down to the Lower House (Feb. 11), where it was accepted without a division. In pursuance of it, a joint Committee, consisting of eight members of the Upper House and sixteen of the Lower, was formed. The Convocation of the Northern Province had in the meantime declined to co-operate.

The admitted the existence of blemishes in the AV. They were ‘favourable to the errors being cor- rected.’ But they ‘would deplore any recasting of the text.’ Notwithstanding, the work went on; and on May 3rd a Report of the joint Com- mittee, embodied in five Resolutions, was laid before both Houses of the Southern Convocation. The Resolutions affirmed— ‘1, That it is desirable that a revision of the AV of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken. 2.

That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the AV. 8. That in the above Resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except when in the judgment of the most competent scholars such change is necessary. 4. That in such necessary changes the style of the lan employed in the existing version be closely followed.

* Notes on the proposed Amendment of the Authorized Version . ., by William Selwyn, Canon of Ely, 1856, p. 11 + Newth, as before, p. 103; Ellicott, Considerations on Revision, 1870, ee 5. t Westcott, g. Bible, p. 838, quoting Chronicles of Con vocation. The words ‘ Hebrew or’ will be noticed as indicating a motion originally wider in its scope. Three members of the NT Revision Company (Drs. Westcott, Newth, and Moulton: have left accounts of these proceedings.

260 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 5. That it is desirable thas Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-opera- tion of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.’ This Report was unanimously adopted by the Upper House, and eight bishops were at once nominated, in accordance with the terms of the last Resolution, to be its quota towards the new joint Committee.

On May 5th the report was discussed in the Lower House. Some opposition was there shown to the principle embodied in the last clause of the fifth Resolution; but, on a division, the adoption of the Report was carried, with but two dissentients. On May 6th eight of their own body were chosen, to co-operate with the others in forming the new Committee. This new, or second, joint Committee held its first meeting on May 25th, 1870.

It then passed a series of Resolutions, indicating the lines on which the work should be carried out. In substance these were as follows, the more important ones being quoted in full :— I. Committee to separate into two Companies—one for OT, the other for NT, II. Names of the members of Convocation, nine in all, forming the OT Company. Names as before, seven in all, for the NT Company. IV. OT Company to begin with Pentateuch. N ss Fi tg Synoptical Gospels. VI.

Names of ‘Scholars and Divines’ (18) to be invited to join the OT Company. Names of ‘Scholars and Divines’ (19) to be invited to join the NT Company.* That the general principles to be followed by both Companies be as follows :— ‘1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text°of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness. 2. To limit, as far as possible, the expressions of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English versions. 8.

Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided. 4. That the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating ; and that when the Text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the altera- tion be indicated in the margin. 6.

To make or retain no change in the Text on the second final revision by each Company, except two-thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities. 6. Cases in which voting may be deferred. 7. Headings of chapters, etc., to be revised. 8. Permission to consult learned men, ‘ whether at home or abroad.’ IX. The work of each Company, on completion, to be com- municated to the other, to secure, as far as possible, uniformity in language. X. 1. 2.

3. ‘Bye-rules’ as to the mode of making corrections. The invitation given in accordance with Resolu- tions VI. and VII. was declined by Canon F. C. Cook, Dr. J. H.. Newman, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. W. Wright of the British Museum. The last- mentioned, however, subsequently joined the OT Company. Of those who accepted it, Dr. S. P. Tregelles was prevented by ill-health from joining in the work, while Professor M‘Gill was removed by death in 1871.

Dean Alford, one of the original members appointed by Convocation, died in the same year. T'wo other members of like standing, Dr. Chr. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, and Dr. Jebb, Dean of Hereford, resigned their seats at an early stage of the proceedings. Seven new members were chosen in their stead, of whom one, Dean Merivale, resigned in 1871. Others were added subsequently. The lists of members were accordingly as follows :— : MEMBERS OF THE OT Revision Company. f- The Rt. Rev.

Connop Thirlwall, Bishop of St. Davids (Chair- man till 1871). : * The names in Resolutions IL., III., VI., VII. are included in the final lists given below. + This and the following list are drawn up, in the main, from those prepared by D1. Philip Schaff for his Cony)yanion to the VIII The Rt. Rev. E. H. Browne, Bishop of Ely, afterwards of Winchester (Chairman from 1871). The Rt. Rev. Chr. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln. aoe ie Rev. Lord Arthur O. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and ells. The Rt. Rev.

Alfred Ollivant, Bishop of Llandaff. The Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity Oxford ; afterwards Dean of Canterbury. The Ven. Benjamin Harrison, Archdeacon of Maidstone. The Ven. H. J. Rose, Archdeacon of Bedford. Dr. W. L. Alexander, Professor of Theology, Congregational Church Hall, Edinburgh. Mr. RB. L. Bensly, Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. The Rev. John Birrell, Professor of Oriental Languages, 8t. Andrews. Dr.

Frank Chance, Sydenham. Mr. T. Chenery, Lord Almoner’s Professor of Arabic, Oxford. The Rev, T. K, Cheyne, Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer of Balliol College, Oxford ; afterwards Oriel Professor of the Interpreta- tion of Holy Scripture, Oxford. Dr. A. B. Davidson, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh. Dr. B. Davies, Professor of Hebrew, Baptist College, Regent's Park, London. Dr. George Douglas, Professor of Hebrew, and afterwards Prin- cipal of Free Church Oollege, Glasgow. Dr. S.

R. Driver, Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford ; afterwards Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. The Rev. O. J. Elliott, Vicar of Winkfield, Windsor. Dr. P. Fairbairn, Principal of the Free Church College, Glasgow. The Rev. F. Field, author of Otiwm Norvicense; editor of Origen’s Hexapla. The Rev. J. D. Geden, Professor of Hebrew, Wesleyan College, Didsbury. Dr. O. D. Ginsburg, editor of Heclesiastes, etc. Dr. F. W. Gotch, Principal of the Baptist College, Bristol. Dr.

John Jebb, Dean of Hereford. Dr. W. Kay, late Principal of Bishop’s College, Oalcutta. he — Stanley Leathes, Professor of Hebrew, King’s College, ondon. The Rev. J. R. Lumby, Fellow of St. Cath. Coll, afterwards Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. Dr. J. M‘Gill, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews. Dr. J. J. S. Perowne, Professor of Hebrew, St.

David’s College, Lampeter ; afterwards Bishop of Worcester, : ae estes Plumptre, Professor of NT Exegesis, King’s College, ondon, The Rey. A. H. Sayce, Fellow and Tutor of Queen’s College ; afterwards Professor of Assyriology, Oxford. Dr. W. Selwyn, Canon of Ely; Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. The Rev. W. Robertson Smith, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Aberdeen ; afterwards Lord Almoner’s Pro- fessor of Arabic, and Fellow of Ohrist’s College, Cambridge. Dr. D. H.

Weir, Professor of Oriental Languages, Glasgow. Dr. W. Wright, Professor of Arabic, Cambridge. Mr. W. Aldis Wright, Librarian, afterwards Bursar, of Trinity College, Cambridge. MEMBERS OF THE NT ReEvision ComPANY.* The Rt. Rev. O. J. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (Chairman). The Rt. Rev. S. Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester. The Rt. Rev. G. Moberly, Bishop of Salisbury. The Most Rev. R. O. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin. The Rt. Rev. Charles Wordsworth, Bishop of St. Andrews.

The Very Rev. E. H. Bickersteth, Dean of Lichfield (Prolocutor of Lower House of Convocation). The Very Rev. Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury. The Very Rev. A. P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster. The Very Rev. Robert Scott, Dean of Rochester. The Very Rev. J. W. Blakesley, Dean of Lincoln. The Very Rev. Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely. The Ven. William Lee, Archdeacon of Dublin. The Ven, Edwin Palmer, Archdeacon of Oxford. Dr. Joseph Angus, President of the Baptist College, Regent's Park, London.

Dr. David Brown, Principal of Free Church College, Aberdeen. Dr. John Eadie, Professor of Biblical Literature in the United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow. ; Dr. F. J. A. Hort, afterwards Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. Gr. Test. 1888. It will be noticed that the present list contains 87 names, Dr. Schaff’s only 27. There is no real discrepancy. The difference of 10 is made up by including those who were removed by death or resignation during the progress of the work.

If they had sat as members, for however short a time, it seemed fair to include them. ‘The losses by death in the OT Company up to 1875, after which year no new names were added to the list, were 7, and by resignation 8. Under the former head come Bishop Thirlwall, Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Principal Fairbairn, and Professors M‘Gill, Weir, and Davies. Under the latter, Bp. Wordsworth, Canon Jebb, and Professor Plumptre. * Dr. Schaff’s list (exclusive of the Secretary, the Rev.

John Troutbeck) contains 24 names; the present one, 28, The dif- ference is accounted for by the presence or absence of the names of Bishop Wilberforce, Dean Alford, and Professor (removed by death), and of Dean Merivale (resigned). a Te ae a ee er ee eee ee oe VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 261 The Rev. W. G. Humphry, Prebendary of St. Paul’s. Dr. B. H, Kennedy, Canon of Ely ; Regius Professor of Greek, Cambridge. Dr. J. B.

Lightfoot, Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; afterwards Bishop of Durham, Dr. W. Milligan, Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen, “al ue . Moulton, afterwards Master of The Leys School, Cam- riage. Dr, §. Newth, Principal of New College, Hampstead. Dr. Alexander Roberts, Professor of Humanity, St. Andrews. Dr. F. H, A. Scrivener, afterwards Vicar of Hendon. Dr. G, Vance Smith, afterwards Principal of the Presbyterian Coll., Carmarthen. Dr. C, J.

Vaughan, Master of the Temple ; Dean of Llandaff. Dr, B, F, Westcott, Canon of Peterborough ; Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; afterwards Bishop of Durham. The two Companies, thus constituted, began their labours in June 1870. On the morning of June 22nd the members of the NT Revision Com- pany met together in Henry vul.’s Chapel, to join in Holy Communion, as the best preparation for the work then to be begun. The OT Company first assembled for business on June 30th.

One of the NT Revisers, Dr. Newth, has left us a minute and interesting description* of the mode of pro- cedure observed in the Company to which he be- longed. Much of what he says will apply equally to both Companies; but want of space forbids all but the briefest extracts. The place of meet- ing was the historic Jerusalem Chamber, placed at their disposal by Dean Stanley. Here, on four consecutive days of every month in the year, except August and September, the NT Revisers met.

The session lasted from eleven to six, with half an hour’s interval for lunch. The ordinary routine is thus described :—Preliminary matters over, ‘the Chairman invites the Com- pany to proceed with the revision, and reads a short passage as given in the AV. The ques- tion is then asked whether any textual changes are proposed; that is, any readings that differ from the Greek text as presented in the edition published by Robert Stephen in 1550.

If any change is proposed, the evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is, by tacit consent, devolved upon two members of the Company, who, from their previous studies, are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions—Dr. Serivener and Dr. flort. . After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the pro- osed reading acce) ted or rejected.

’ The reading eing thus settled, questions of rendering followed, and were dealt with in a similar way. It is evident that, with such methods, progress would necessarily be slow. In fact, at the close of their ninth sitting the NT Company had finished the first revision of not more than 153 verses, or an average of 17a day.t It was even proposed, for more expedition, to divide the Company into two sections; one beginning the Epistles, while the other proceeded with the Gospels.

Fortunately, the proposal was negatived. Meantime an event occurred which, while pro- mising to make the work more thorough, seemed likely to render it still more protracted. This was the association with the English t Revisers of two Companies of American biblical scholars. The arrangements were not completed till Dec. 7th, 1871, and work was not actually begun by the American contingent till Oct. 4th, 1872, after they had received from England the first revision of the Synoptic Gospels.

§ But there is evidence that such co-operation had been thought of, almost from the very first. ‘On July 7th, 1870, it was moved in the Lower House of Convocation by the present Prolocutor (Lord Alwyne Compton) that * Lectwres, as before, p. 117 ff. + 1b. p. 121. { The word ‘ English’ is used in its widest sense. § Schaff, as before, p. 391ff. Dr. Schaff was himself the President of the Am rican Committee. the.

Upper House should be requested to instruct the Committee of Convocation to invite the co- operation of some American divines.’ This was at once assented to by the Upper House.* Ditti- culties naturally arose, but were overcome by patience and tact, and by the good feeling dis- perce on both sides. A visit of Dr. Angus to ew York in August 1870, and of Dr.

Schaff to this country in the following year (when he was resent, unofficially, at one of the meetings of the Jnglish NT Revision Company and observed their methods), helped to smooth the way. A repre- sentative Committee of American scholars and theologians was formed, with Dr. Schaff for Presi- dent, and this resolved itself into two Companies, as follows :— OLD TEesTAMENT Revision Company (AMERICAN), ae Le H. Green (Chairman), Theological Seminary, Princeton, Dr. G. E.

Day (Secretary), Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Coun. Dr. O. A. Aiken, Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J. Dr. T. W. Chambers, Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, N.Y Dr. T. J. Conant, Brooklyn, N.Y. Dr. J. de Witt, Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. G. E, Hare, Divinity School, Phila. Dr. C. P. Krauth, Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsyl- vania, Phila, Dr, T. Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Greek and Hebrew, Union College, Schenectady, N.Y. (d. 1877). Dr. C. M.

Mead, Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass, Dr. H. Osgood, Theological Seminary, Rochester, N.Y. Dr. J. Packard, Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va Dr. C. E. Stowe, Hartford, Conn, Dr. J. Strong, Theological Seminary, Madison, N.J. Dr, C. V. A. Van Dyck, Beirfit, Syria (consulting member on questions of Arabic). New TESTAMENT Revision Company (AMERICAN). Dr. T. D. Woolsey, New Haven, Conn. (Chairman). Dr. J. H. Thayer, Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. (Secretary). Dr.

Ezra Abbot, Divinity School, Harvard University, Cam- bridge, Mass Dr. J. K. Burr, Trenton, New Jersey. Dr. Thomas Chase, President of Haverford College, Pa. Dr. Howard Crosby, Chancellor of New York University, N.Y. Dr. Timothy Dwight, Divinity School, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. Eas H. 76 Hackett, Theological Seminary, Rochester, N.Y. (d. 1876). Dr. James Hadley, Professor of Greek, Yale College, New Haven (d. 1872). we Charles Hodge, Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J. 1878). Dr. A. C.

Kendrick, University of Rochester, N.Y. The Rt. Rev. Alfred Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware. Dr. M. B. Riddle, Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. Dr. Philip Schaff, Union Theological Seminary, N.Y. Dr. Charles Short, Columbia College, N.Y. Dr. E. A. Washburn, Calvary Church, N.Y. (d. Feb. 1881). It will be noticed that four members of the above Company died before seeing the fruit of their labours, but not before they had each taken part, for a longer or shorter time, in the work.

Two names are not included—those of Dr. G. R. Crooks of New York, and Dr. W. F. Warren of Boston—both of whom accepted the invitation to join the Company, but found themselves unable to attend. The place of meeting was the Bible House, New York. Owing to the start they had gained, the English Companies had finished the first revision of the Synoptic Gospels, and been twice over the Pentateuch, respectively, by the time their American brethren were ready to begin.

The manner in which their fellow-work was then carried on is described in the Preface to the Revised NT. ‘We transmitted to them from time to time,’ say the Eng- lish Revisers, ‘each several portion of our First Revision, and received from them in return their criticisms and corrections. These we considered with much care and attention during the time we were engaged on our Second Revision.

We then sent over to them the various portions of the Second Revision as they were completed, and received further suggestions, which, like the former, were closely and carefully considered. Last of * Times, May 20th, 1881, quoted by Schaff. 262 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) all, we forwarded to them the RV in its final form ; and a list of those passages in which they desire to place on record their preference of other readings and renderings will be found at the end of the volume.

’ The first revision of the entire NT occupied six ears of labour ; the second, about two years and a half. What was to some extent a third revision, together with various necessary details, prolonged the task of the English Company till Nov. 11th, 1880, ‘on which day, at five o’clock in the after- noon, after ten years and five months of labour, the revision of the NT was brought to a close.’ * The Preface bears that date.

But further causes of delay intervened ; and it was not till Tuesday, May 17th, 1881, for London, and Friday, May 20th, for New York, that the actual publication took place. The scene in each city on both those days— the congestion of streets in the booksellers’ quarter, the stoppage of all other traffic, the night-and-day labours of the work-people employed—will not soon be forgotten by those who witnessed them. Dr.

Schaff computes that at least three million copies of the Revised NT were sold, in this country and the United States together, within the first year of its publication. Meantime the revision of the OT was advancing, on similar lines, but more slowly, from the greater extent of ground to be covered. The Revisers in this case were more conservative than their fellow- workers on the NT, and their version differs less in proportion from the Authorized than does the other.

The Preface, dated July 10th, 1884, speaks of the revision of the OT as completed in eighty- five sessions, ending on June 20th, 1884, having occupied 792 days, usually of six hours each. The day of actual publication, May 19th, 1885, was marked by little of the excitement which attended the publication of the NT four years before.

The Revised Bible, in its complete form, bore the title:—‘The| Holy Bible | containing the | Old and New Testaments | Translated out of the Original Tongues | Being the Version set forth A.D. 1611 | Compared with the most ancient Authorities and Revised. | Printed for the Uni- versities of | Oxford and Cambridge | Oxford [or Cambridge] | At the University Press | 1885.’ No mention has thus far been made of any revision of the Apocrypha.

Such an extension of the work does not appear to have been con- templated by Convocation. That it was finally included in the scheme was a result of the negotiations about copyright.

In the course of 1872 an agreement was entered into between the Committee of Convocation and the representatives of the University Presses of Oxford and Cam- bridge, by which the latter, on condition of acquiring the copyright of the RV, when com- pleted, agreed to provide a sum sufficient to cover the bare cost of production, including the travelling expenses of members of the Companies; whose labour, in other respects, was a labour of love.

+ It was then for the first time stipulated by the University printers, that the Apocrypha should be included in the scheme of revision. This was assented to. In pursuance of the compact thus made, it was arranged between the two English Companies of Revisers (the Americans not joining in this part of the work), that, as soon as the NT Company should have finished its task, it should resolve itself into three committees for the purpose of beginning the cevision of the Apocrypha.

= These- were to be called, in imitation of their predecessors of 1611, the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Com- * Newth, as before, p. 125. t Westcott, English Bible, pp. 346, 347. { Preface to the Apocrypha in the RV, from which most of the particulars immediately following are taken. VERSIONS (ENGLISH) — mittees. The first of the three had assigned to if the Book of Sirach; the second had 1 Mace.

, te which were afterwards added Tobit and Judith the third was to take Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. The London Committee began work on May 11th, 1881, and finished the second and final revision of Sirach on May 25th, 1883. The Westminster Committee completed their second revision of 1 Mac. on Noy. 3rd, 1881, and the remainder of their task on Oct. 11th, 1882, The work of the Cambridge Committee lasted from the spring of 1881 to the summer of 1892.

During this com- paratively long interval space was found for giving the difficult Book of Wisdom a third revision. The OT Revision Company having in the mean- time (July 1884) come to the end of their own proper labours, passed a resolution, appointing six of their number a committee for revising the | remaining books of the Apocrypha. Of these six, two were unable to take any part in the work; and Dr.

Field, one of the OT Company, whose co-operation had been invited for the settle- | — ment of the text, died in April 1885. A small committee of four members—Professor Lumby, — Professor Robertson Smith, Mr. Bensly, and Mr. W. Aldis Wright—had thus the task of revising what remained of the Apocrypha, comprising | land 2 Esdras, Ad. Esther, Baruch, Song of the Three Children, the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of Manasses.

For one of these books (2 Esdras) they had the benefit of Bensly’s careful reconstruction of the text, and were thus able to give a translation of the ‘ miss- ing fragment’ (795%), In the other instances no critical settlement of the existing text was at- tempted. The revised Apocrypha was published early in 1895. It bore the title: ‘The | Apocrypha Translated out of the | Greek and Latin tongues | Being the Version set forth A.D. 1611 | Compar with the most ancient Authorities and | Revised. A.

D. 1894 | Printed for the Universities of | Oxford and Cambridge | Oxford [or Cambridge] | At the University Press | 1895.’ In endeavouring to form a just estimate of the merits of the RV, it will be convenient to take the component parts of it in the order in which they appeared.

The NT, moreover, challenges our attention first, because of its surpassing import- ance, because the changes made in revising it were relatively much more numerous than in the case of the OT, and because the attack and defence were here the most strenuous. As was not un- natural, the strife grew fiercest about the form in which the Lord’s Prayer was now set forth. In both its forms (Mt 6°", Lk 11*-4) alike it was now without the doxology. The form in Luke was much curtailed.

For ‘Our Father which art in heaven’ it had simply ‘Father.’ It lacked alto- gether two petitions—‘ Thy will,’ etc., and ‘ Deliver us from evil.’ These changes were made on MS authority, believed to be the highest; and the clauses omitted were duly noted in the margin. So far, the Revisers were within their rights. ut a further alteration of ‘from evil’ to ‘from the evil one’ could not be so easily defended.

It was understood to have been accepted mainly through the influence of Bishop Lightfoot. A chief argu- ment for the change, Me alleged fact that picacOas amé, as distinguished from picac@a éx, denotes deliverance from a person, not a state, was con- troverted by other scholars; and we cannot but wish that, in this instance, the renderings in the text and margin could have changed places. See, for an outline of the controversy, the Bishop of Dur ham’s three letters in the Guardian of Sept.

7th, 14th, and 21st, | 181, reprinted in A Fresh Revision of the NT, 8rd ed. 1891, and Canon F. ©. Cook’s A Second Letter to the Lord Bishop of | London, 1882. | — VERSIONS (ENGLISH) Fault was also found with the change—the uncalled-for change, as it seemed to many—in the order of the words in the familiar Song of Simeon. What was gained, men would ask, by thus re-group- ing the well-remembered lines— * Now lettest thou thy servant depart, O Lord, According to thy word, in peace’?

A more perfect parallelism, it might be replied, and a closer adherence to the order of the original. But the further question might be pressed: How far is this latter quality essential to a good idiom- atic translation ? _ More irritating, however, than such changes in important passages as we have noticed, were the incessant alterations in small particulars, which tripped up the reader at every turn.

* One accus- tomed to ‘Jesus stood on the shore,’ in Jn 214, could not take kindly to ‘Jesus stood on the beach,’ even though assured that the rendering of alyiadds was thus kept uniform. Nor would one who knew how deeply the phrase ‘vials of wrath’ was em- bedded in our language, fail to demur, if he read Rey 15, at having ‘bowls of the wrath of God’ substituted for the familiar expression.

The Re- visers of 1611 and those of 1881 both equally admitted that no two words in different languages cover precisely the same ground. But from this common axiom they proceeded to opposite con- clusions. The older translators felt justified by it in varying the rendering of the same word in the 1 Sealer They even made a merit of doing so.

‘We have not tied ourselves,’ they say in their Preface, ‘to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. That we should express the same notion in the same particular word ; as, for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent . . thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom.

’ The liberty thus claimed is freely used in the AV, and, it must be admitted, deserves at times rather to be called licence. The translation may gain in spirit and buoyancy, but at the cost of losing other qualities yet more precious. How much is lost, for instance, by the capricious altera- tion of ‘destroy’ to ‘defile,’ in 1 Co 37?7—‘If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy.

’ Nothing but the love of variety for its own sake could have prompted the double render- ing of diapéoes in 1 Co 12** by ‘differences’ and ‘diversities,’ and of évepynudrwy and its cognate verb by ‘operations’ and ‘worketh.’ Hardly less injurious to the sense, in many passages, is the converse fault of using the same English word to translate different words in the original.

Thus ‘light’ serves as the equivalent of gs, gworip (Ph 21), dwricuds (2 Co 44), péyyos (Lk 11°), Adyvos (Mt 672); ‘know’ of ofda, yiwdoxw, émvywooxw, and ériara- uat. The Revisers of 1881 were fully alive to the difficulties placed in their way by this peculiarity of their predecessors’ labour, and speak in their Preface of the principles on which they en- deavoured to solve the problem thus presented to them.

They discriminated, as far as possible, between ‘varieties of rendering which were com- * Professor Plumptre computes the number of variations in rendering from the AV of the NT to be more than 35,000. Others make them 36,000. See Canon Cook’s Second Letter, p.6andn. Cook further estimates that the deviations from the Greek text of 1611 in that adopted by the Revisers exceed 5000. Edgar (The Bibles of England, 1889, p. 342) agrees, making the exact number 6002.

The Greek text used by king James's translators, so far as it could be ascertained, was published at Cambridge by Scrivener, and had, as footnotes, the readings preferred by the Revisers. A similar work, but with converse arrangement of text and notes, was published at Oxford by Archdeacon Palmer. The calculation was thus made easy.

VERSIONS (ENGIJISH) 263 patible with fidelity to the true meaning of the text’ and ‘ varieties which involved inconsistency, and were suggestive of differences that had no existence in the Greek.’ To the former class they professed themselves lenient. Some have thought that they would have acted more wisely if they had made this class more comprehensive, instead of sacrificing so much for a uniformity of render- ing, not always attainable even by themselves.

* It may be well, as helping the reader to form a judgment for himself, to set down a short list of passages from the NT in which the rendering of the RV is generally admitted to be an improve- ment, followed by another of passages in which the changes made are considered by many to be for the worse. (A) Changes admitted to be for the better. AV 1611. | RV 1881, Mt 1215 But when Jesus Mt1215 And Jesus peroeiv- knew it [as if for a time he ing it. had not known it].

| Mk 42) Is a candle brought Mk 421 Is the lamp brought to be put undera bushel... to be put under the bushel, and not to be set on a candle- ... and not to be put on the stick? stand? Mk 488 And he was in the Mk 438 And he himself was hinder part of the ship, asleep in the stern, asleep on the on a pillow. cushion. Mk 719. . purging all Mk 719 This he said, making meats. all meats clean [xatopifav, masc. in &, A, B]. Mk 1042 lord it over them. Lk 2342 when thou comest in thy kingdom.

Mk 1042 exercise lordship over them. Lk 2342 when thou comest into thy kingdom. Lk 2417 .,. as ye walk, and Lk 2417... as ye walk? are sad? sey they stood still, looking sad. Jn 41... made and bap- Jn 41... was making and tized. baptizin n o116 Tend my sheep. Ac 2327 This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers, and rescued him. Ac 2623 With but little per- suasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. Jn 2116 Feed my sheep.

Ac 2327 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him. Ac 2628 Almost thou per- suadest me to be a Christian. Ac 2740 And when they had Ac 2740 And casting off the taken up the anchors, they anchors, they left them in the committed themselves untothe sea. sea. 1Co 723... but I spare 1Co 78... and I would you. spare you.

1Co 95 Have we not power 1 Co 95 Have we no right to to lead about a sister, a wife lead about a wife that is a believer. Ph 46 In nothing be anxious. eee. Ph 46 Becareful for nothing. | 2Th2l...bythecoming.| 2Th 21... touching the , coming. 1Ti 318 . . purchase to 1Ti 318... gain to them- themselves a good degree. H selves © good standing. 1Ti &... supposing that’ 1 Ti 6°... supposing that gain is godliness. godliness is a way of gain. 2 Ti 226... who are taken 2Ti 226...

having been captive by him at hiswill[pro- taken captive by the Lord’s nouns ambiguous]. | servant unto the will of God [see also m.]}. Tit 112 Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons., Ja 125... being nota hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that . worketh. Tit 112 The Cretians are al- way liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. Ja 1%... he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work. (B) Changes not so admitted. AV 1611. RV 188L Mt 5%...

till thou hast Mt 5%6 till thou have paid paid the uttermost farthing. the last ¢ farthing. * See the examples of inconsistency in rendering in the RV collected by Edgar, p. 362. d:daéecxwAos is ‘teacher,’ ‘doctor,’ ‘master’; xépios has four equivalents ; rapaxAnois and owadyzves each five. Of course, some of these are AV renderings allowsd to remain. t Gr. icxeroy. A high authority, Dr. F.

Field, himself one of the Revisers, characterizes this change as one ‘than which no single verbal alteration has met with more general reprobation (Notes on the Translation of the NT’, 1899, Pref. p. xiv m), 264 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) AV 1611. Mt 1322. . it is the greatest among herbs. Mk 162. . they came unto the sepulchre... Lk 55... we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing. Jn 172... that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Ac 2137 Canst thou speak Greek? Ac 2716... we had much work to come by the boat. Ro 57 Yet peradventure for ® good man some would even dare to die. Ro 515 For if through the offence of one many be dead, vauch more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, ath abounded unto many. 1Co 5! It is reported com- monly... 2Col102...

that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, where- with I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. Gal 216 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, Gal 316 Now to Abraham . were the promises made. 1 Ti 32 A bishop... 1Ti 610 For the love of money is the root of all evil. He 115... for before his translation he had this testi- mony, that he pleased God.

He 127 If ye endure chasten- ing, God dealeth with you as with sons. He 135 Let your conversa- tion §$ be without covetous- ness. Rev 195 Praise our God, all ye his servants. RV 1881. Mt 1332, .. it is greater* than the herbs. ME 162... they cometo the tomb... Lk65... we toiled all night, and took nothing.t Jn 172... that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life. Ac 2187 Dost thou know Greek? Ac 2716 , . we were able, with difficulty, to secure § the boat.

Ro 57 for || peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die. Ro 515 For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. 1Co 5! It is actually J re- ported... 2Co102... that I may not when present show courage with the confidence wherewith I count to be bold against some, which count of us as if we walked according to the flesh. Gal 216 . .

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save [m. but only] through faith in Jesus Christ.** Gal 316 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken. 1 Ti 32 The bishop... 1Ti 6!0 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.t? He 115... for before his translation he hath had wit- ness borne to him that he had been well-pleasing unto God. He 127 Itisfor {tt chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons. He 135 Be ye free from the love of money.

Rev 195 Give praise to our God, all ye his servants. © The Revisers of the OT had a task before them in some respects more difficult, in others easier, than that which the NT Revisers had had to face. On the one hand, their subject was a much longer one; more varied in its contents, and hence requiring more diversified knowledge in those who dealt with * Query, used here as a superlative? js/%wy is so used in Mt 181 and elsewhere. The tendency of the superlative form of adjs.

to disappear in NT Greek (noticed by Rutherford in the Pref. to his new translation of Romans, 1900) is illustrated by the fact that “éy107r0s is only found once in the NT (2 P 14). + Justified by RV on ground of aorist tenses. t For the ellipse of Awaeiy with EAayuesi, see Field, in loc. § ‘Difficulty’ not found in AV. ‘Secure,’ as a verb, only in Mt 2814 (vuas dpspinvovs srojoopev), where the Revisers have substituted ‘rid you of care.

’ As a rendering of sepizpareis yevécbos in the present passage, ‘secure’ is inappropriate, unless (as is probable enough) the RV uses it as simply equivalent to ‘get hold of.’ _. {| The ‘for’ refers to a thought suppressed, by a common Gr. idiom. Rutherford thus supplies the ellipse: ‘I say barely conceivable, not wholly inconceivable ; for,’ etc. As left in the text the words are scarcely intelligible. 4] ‘ Actually’ in this sense is a modernism. ** Burgon (The Revision Revised, p.

147) quotes Bp. Words- worth of Lincoln as saying that the statement thus put forth, with ‘save’ instead of ‘but,’ or ‘but only,’ ‘is illogical and erroneous, and contradicts the whole drift of St. Paul’s argu- ment in that Ep. and in the Ep. to the Romans,’ tt tevroy sav, not ravroiay, is ‘all,’ not ‘all kinds of.’ With fie, anarthrous as predicate, Field (én loc.) aptly compares (after otstett) Sea: Vil. p. 280A, &pxy xa) pile ravris dyobod 4 rHs yrorpos vOOv%.

‘ « tt «is has undoubtedly better authority than ¢. But, with this allowance, let the two versions be compared simply.as English. §§ Gr, 6 rpéros, ‘Let your manners be without auarice’ (Rhemish), It must be admitted, however, that the AV is very unintelligible here, or, if intelligible, gives a totally falve sense to a modern reader. it; beset, moreover, with greater obscurities, and not illustrated by the light shed from many quarters upon the NT.

On the other hand, the confessed obscurity of many passages formed & justification of the Revisers’ work; fewer persons were competent to criticise their work; and they had the advantage of an interval of four years after the appearance of the revised NT, in 1881, in which to profit by the verdict passed by public opinion upon the performance of their colleagues. Above all, they were not hampered by the constant necessity of deciding between rival texts of the original.

Very wisely, we think, they came to the conclusion, as stated in their Preface, that ‘as the state of knowlec“e on the subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to adopt the Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the Autho- rized {Translators had done, only in exceptional cases.

Being carried out on the same lines as the revised NT, we find in the present work the same improvements in the arrangement of the English text: the grouping by paragraphs, the indication by spaces of a change of subject, the clearer mark- ing of quotations, the system of parallelism adopted for poetical books and passages, and the like.

As in the NT, the direction of Convocation is obeyed, that no change of reading be admitted into the English text if not approved, at the final revision, by a majority of at least two-thirds of the Revisers present. Hence it may often be the case that 2 particular reading in the margin is one which 4a majority—though not the requisite majority—of the Revisers would have wished to see inserted in the text. It is permissible to conjecture that an example may be found at the outset in Gn 1?

, where ‘the spirit of God moved upon’ is left undisturbed, but the margin offers the alternative rendering ‘was brooding upon’ (cf. Dt 321). As in the case of the NT also, another rule of Convocation is not observed—that, namely, which directed that the revision should extend to ‘the headings of pages and chapters.’ Both classes of headings have been omitted altogether; with the twofold advantage that space is gained, and the province of the commentator is not encroached upon.

In passing to the more important subject of the merits of the revised translation itself, the first uestion that will occur to many minds is, whether the changes made are proportionately as numerous asin the NT. Is there, in particular, so frequent an infringement of the rule laid down by the Com- mittee of Convocation ‘to introduce as few altera- tions as possible into the text of the AV, consist- ently with faithfulness’? The prevalent opinion is that there is not.

But to give a decisive answer is less easy than might be supposed; partly from the extent of the ground to be covered, and partly from the fact that the language of the OT is in general less familiar to most persons than that of the NT.* Thus in Jon 4° we had ‘to deliver him from his grief’—a vigorous and appropriate ex- pression at the time, although it may well be asked how many modern readers are acquainted with the old meaning of ‘grief.

’ Instead of this, we now have ‘to deliver him from his evil case’—a rendering which, while closer to the * A writer in the Church Quarterly Review (Oct. 1885, pp. 190, 191) reckons that there are about 830 changes in Judges, 684 in Pss 1-41, 335 in Hosea, and 1389 in Job, ‘the most difficult book in the OT.’ In the Edinburgh Review of the same date, p. 483, similar results are obtained. The reviewer notes 2094 changes in the entire Book of Psalms, 1278 in Jer., 1550 in Ezekiel.

On an average of nine books, the changes marked ‘important’ number about one-sixth of the whole. But it is obvious that opinions might differ widely as to what changes were important. VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 265 Hebrew,” lacks the spirit and force of the other. Ubjection has been taken, again, to the substi- tution of ‘my provocation’ for ‘ grief’ in 18 1%%, where Hannah pleads: ‘Out of the abundance of my complaint and grief [but is this the meaning of the Heb. oy2 ?]

have I spoken hitherto.’ The OT Revisers made it a principle not to depart from the Massoretic Text save in ‘exceptional cases.’ One such case occurs in Jg 18%, where are described the idolatries of the tribe of Dan, and the participation in them of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son—as we now read—of Moses. The AV in place of Moses has Manasseh. The explanation is simple.

To save the great lawgiver from the reproach of having an idolatrous descendant, the Massoretes suggested a corruption of the text in the passage in question, by writing a ‘suspended N’ over and between the M and S in Moses, thus converting it, so far as the consonants are concerned, into Manasses.t The Revisers have rightly restored Moses, which is also the reading of the Vulgate. To take another example.

In Ps 24° the AV reads: ‘This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob’; with the marginal variant, ‘O God of Jacob.’ All attempts to make sense of the former reading being, to say the least, far-fetched, the Revisers have wisely laced in their text that supplied by the margin ; in which they have the support of the LXX, the Vulgate, and the Syriac.

The advantage gained by forsaking the received text for the ancient versions being in these and some other instances} indisputable, it is perhaps to be regretted that the Revisers did not use the term ‘exceptional’ with a greater latitude of meaning. ‘lo have done so might have saved them at times from the necessity of encumbering their margin with variants (as in the case of Pss 2” and 22}6), only perplexing the reader, and leaving him to reconcile conflicting renderings as best he can.

A word must be said in passing on the treatment of archaisms by the OT Revisers. The principle they lay down in their Preface appears at first sight to be a sound and consistent one. ‘ Where an archaic word or expression was liable to be misunderstood, or at least was not perfectly in- telligible,’ they have changed it for another. Where, ‘although obsolete,’ it ‘was not unin- telligible,’ they have suffered it to stand. Thus, to take their own illustration, ‘to ear’ (1S 8!)

and ‘earing’ (Gn 45°) are replaced by ‘to plow’ and ‘ plowing,’ as being now not only obsolete, but misleading. On the other hand, ‘bolled’ is re- tained in Ex 9#! (‘the flax was bolled’), as the word is still occasionally met with in country parts, and has no English equivalent to express its meaning—that of ‘ podded for seed.

’ But, as often happens, a principle, good in itself, is here found to work imperfectly in practice; the reason in this case being, that words and phrases intel- ligible to one class of readers are unintelligible to another, and hence it is difficult to know where to draw the line. The result is at best a compromise.

‘Artillery’ is gone from 1S 20%; but ‘bravery,’ in the sense of adornments or beauty,§ is re- tained in Is 318, Cain is now a ‘wanderer,’ not a ‘vagabond’; the inlets of the shore, where Asher abode, are ‘creeks,’ not ‘breaches’; the question of Achish (18 27!) is made clear by the simple change of ‘road’ to ‘raid.’ But we still meet with ‘ occurrent’ for ‘occurrence’ (1 K 54), ‘chap- *\ny70, literally rendered in the LXX by dwé ray zaxdy abrod. + See Lord Arthur Hervey’s note, ad loc.

, in The Speaker's Commentary. t As Ps 162, Ps 2216, 1 Ch 628, See the article in the Church Quarterly Review, before referred to, pp. 186, 187, where these passages are discussed. § See the marginal reading of Is 44 men’ for ‘traders’ (2 Ch 94), ‘sith’ for ‘since.’ In 18S 17” ‘carriage’ is properly changed to ‘baggage,’ as in Is 10% and elsewhere; and in 2K 23" ‘title’ (from the Vulgate) is in like manner replaced by ‘monument.

’* Yet the house in which the leper king Azariah dies is still called a ‘several,’ instead of a ‘separate,’ house (2 K 15°); and, yet more strangely, the Latinism ‘desired’ for ‘regretted’ is still found in the description of the death of Jehoram (2 Ch 21”), In spite, however, of defects and inconsistencies, of which only a very few specimens have been given, it is but just to the OT Revisers to admit that they have corrected many a faulty rendering, and by so doing have thrown light on a multitude of obscure passages.

In 25 18, for instance, David’s bidding ‘the wse of the bow’ to be taught to the children of Judah has always been felt to be out of place at the beginning of the dirge. By the simple change of use to song, as the word to be supplied, it is seen that the dirge itself, ‘ the song of the bow,’ was the thing enjoined to be taught.

The inconsequent statement in Is 10%, ‘though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return,’ is made logical by reading ‘only’ for ‘yet’; both words being alike in italics. Much improved also is the rendering of the next verse. In the AV it stands: ‘ For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined....’ Inthe RV itis: ‘Fora consum- mation, and that determined, shall the Lord...

’ ‘The ships of Tarshish,’ in the older rendering of Ezk 27”, by a poetical but not very intelligible metaphor, ‘did sing of thee in thy market.’ Now, in simple prose it is: ‘were thy caravans for thy merchandise.’ In a very obscure passage, Hos 5? ‘the revolters are gone deep in making slaughter’ can at least be understood, which is more than can be truly said of the earlier version: ‘are pro- found to make slaughter.

’ Hab 1" gains much in terseness, not to say fidelity, by the rendering ‘whose might is his god,’ in place of ‘imputing this his power unto his god.’ Other examples crowd upon the memory, but these will suffice. As we try to view the work of the Revisers upon the two Testaments as a finished whole, the question inevitably arises: Is their work a failure or a success?

Will the Bible, in the form in which they leave it to us, become the Bible of the English- speaking people, or will it be quietly laid aside, to be referred to occasionally as a useful commentary on the older version? Fortunately, we are spared the necessity of replying, as time alone can give, the answer.

We do not forget how slowly, fora long while, the AV itself won its way to general acceptance ; and how the Psalter it contains has not even yet displaced the older version in the Book of Common Prayer.t| Knowing as we do the long and unselfish labour bestowed by the Revisers upon their task, we cannot but sympathize with the aspirations with which their Pretaces close.

But as it is a hazardous undertaking to attempt to restore—not renovate—an ancient building, so is it perilous to apply the touch of any but the most loving and cautious, as well as skilful, hands to the venerable structure of the Version of 1611. For its ‘marvellous English,’ to recall a familiar *The Hebrew word }}°¥, here so rendered, is translated ‘sign’ in Ezk 3915 (AV and RV), while in Jer 3121 its plural is ‘waymarks.’ See Edgar, as before, p. 319 n.

t See some remarks on this by Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 189. Professor Cheyne, who quotes the passage (Haypositor, 3rd ser. vol. v. p. 304), justly urges in reply the claims of sense as against sound. But in a translation of poetical books both must be studied. As a passing illustration, let the reader call to mind two sentences from the older version of Ps 1479.

18 ‘Who giveth fodder unto the cattle,’ and ‘He bloweth with his wind and the waters flow’; and ask himself what hag been gained by the alteration of these in the RV. 266 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) passage of F. W. Faber, ‘lives on in the ear like a music that never can be forgotten. . Its feli- cities seem often to be almost things rather than mere words.’ The makers of that version erred, no doubt, in many places.

Small credit is ours, if, with the Gidea tuewledae of nearly three centuries, we can discern their faults. But great will be the praise of that scholar, or that band of scholars, who shall be judged to have removed the blemishes of their handiwork, without marring its beauties. * The revision of the Apocrypha was, as before said, an afterthought. It was simply a matter of agreement between the Revisers and the repre- sentatives of the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge.

Moreover, whilst, in the Speaker's Commentary, the Apocr., issued in 1888, was in- cluded under the general title of ‘The Holy Bible,’ the title-page of the revised edition of 1895 makes no such claim. The Preface ends simply with the unassuming hope ‘ that it will be found helpful to the student, and acceptable to the general reader of the Apocrypha.

’ This seems to make a few words desirable on the position held by the Apocrypha in our English Bibles The first printed English Bible containing the Apocrypha was that of Miles Coverdale, 1535. In ashort prologue, Coverdale describes these writings as ‘The bokes and treatises which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they founde in the Canon of the Hebrue.

’ After giving a list of them, which agrees in order with our own as far as the end of Sirach, the translator adds: ‘ Unto these also belongeth Baruc, whom we haue set amonge the prophetes next vnto Jeremy, because he was his scrybe and in his tyme.’ He then explains that these books ~‘ are not iudged amonge the doctours to be of like reputacion with the other scripture, as thou [good reader] mayest perceaue by S.

Jerome in epistola ad Paulinum, And the chefe cause therof is this: there be many places in them, that seme to be repugnaunt vnto the open and manyfest trueth in the other bokes of the byble. Neuertheles, I haue not gathered them together to the intent that I wolde haue them despysed, or little sett by, or that I shulde think them false, for I am not able to proue it.

The above ‘ gathering together’ of the Apocry- phal books into one place, while it might seem an *It will be instructive to note the progress made in a parallel revision movement—that concerned with the German Luther Bible. We are enabled to do this by a paper of Dr. Philip Schaff’s in the Hapositor, 8rd ser. vol. v. p. 468 ff.

The work was begun, in 18638, by the Eisenach German Evangelical Church Conference, and the result of their labours appeaied at Halle, in 1883, under the title: Die Bibel, oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der deutschen Uebersetzung D. Martin Luthers. The revised NT had been already published separately. The Halle publication was re- garded as a Probe-bibel, or specimen of what was proposed.

The revision was carried out with extreme care, but in too conservative a spirit ; as may be judged from the fact that, while the English revised NT contained some 36,000 changes, the German contained only 200. Failing to please either party —those who desired and those who deprecated change—‘ it was recommitted by the Eisenach Conference of 1886 for final action.

’ After being subjected to a second and more thorough- going revision, and kept back for the proverbial nine years, the Luther Bible was issued again at Halle in 1892, A Preface by Dr. O. Frick, Director of the v. Oanstein Bible Society, gives an interesting account of the progress of the work, and the lines on which it had been carried out.

Still more than in the English revision, the difficulty was how to steer judiciously between opposite extremes: to correct errors and remove archaisms, without needlessly disturbing the venerable ‘rust’ on Luther’s handiwork ; to keep in view the wants: of school and congregation, while not forgetful of the more fastidious taste of scholars ;—in short, to pacify alike those who would summarily recast the whole version, and those who would leave it altogether untouched —the large class of those whom Dr, Frick might have described as holding to the opinion of Magr.

Petrus Lapp, in the Epp. obscur. Virorum: ‘Sacra scriptura rane is est translata, et non indigemus-aliis translationi- us.’ Dr. Frick refers, for fuller information on the subject, to Das Werk der Bibelrevision, Halle, 1892. Seé also two articles by Dr. H. L. Strack in the Expositor, 8rd ser. ii. pp. 178-187 ; ¥. pp. 193-201 ; and Funck’s Beurteilung der rev. Ausgabe d. N.T. 1892, . . Cannstadt, 1896. t For a fuller treatment of the subject, see the art. APocRYPHA in vol.

i, that by Bishop Ryle in Smith’s DB, and Dr. Salmon’s General Introduction to the Apocr, in the Speaker's Commentary. appropriate bridging over of the interval between the Old and New Testaments, undoubtedly tended to make deeper and more sharply cut the line dividing the canonical from the uncanonical books, and to diminish the esteem in which the latter were held.

So long as these were interspersed among the canonical, as in the Greek and Latin Bibles, it was natural that, in the popular mind, the two classes should be indice e Tre- garded as Scripture. Even Colet, in his Ryght Sruitfull Monicion, cites or refers to Sirach more frequently than any other book ; and later still, in the two Books of Homilies (1547 and 1563), we find passages from the Apocr. quoted as ‘ Scripture written by the Holy Ghost,’ or as ‘the Word of God.

’* But, when the Apocryphal writings were grouped together by themselves, the thought easily suggested itself, to the Puritan at any rate, that they might be dispensed with altogether. It is said that some copies of the Genevan Bible of 1576 were issued without the Apocrypha.t In any case, the practice of printing Bibles not con- taining the Apocr. must have continued, for in 1615 it was judged of sufficient importance by Archbishop Abbot to be prohibited, under pain of one year’s imprisonment.

This prohibition was of little avail in arresting the course of public opinion. In 1643 Dr. John Lightfoot, when preaching before the House of Commons, com- plained of the privilege, curtailed as it was, still enjoyed by the Apocryphal writings. He speaks of them not as connecting, but as separating, the Old and New Testaments.

‘Thus sweetly and nearly,’ he exclaims, ‘ should the two Testaments join together, and thus divinely would they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth thrust in between.’ ‘Like the two cherubins in the temple oracle,’ he continues, the Law and the Gospel would touch each other, ‘did not this patchery of human invention divorce them asunder.’ t But in fact the concessions made to the Puritan party at the Hampton Court Conference itself, with regard to the use of the Apocr.

in the Lectionary of the Church, and the large excisions then agreed to,§ furnish evidence enough, if any were still needed, of the diminished esteem into which the Apocryphal books were falling, and help to explain the comparative carelessness with which these books were revised in 1611. That the revision of the Apocr. then made shows signs of less care and deliberation than was bestowed upon the canonical books, is certain.

The task was assigned to the second Cambridge Company, a body which comprised perhaps fewer scholars of eminence than any of the others. They were the first to finish their allotted share of the work.

‘For the rest,’ says Scrivener, || ‘they are con- tented to leave many a rendering of the Bishops’ Bible as they found it, when nearly any change must have been for the better; even where their predecessor sets them a better example they resort to undignified, mean, almost vulgar words and phrases; and on the whole they convey to the reader’s mind the painful impression of having disparaged the importance of their own work, or of having imperfectly realized the truth that what is worth doing at all is worth doing well.

’ One peculiarity of the AV of the Apoer. could * This was noticed by Pusey in his Hirenicon. See the Church Quarterly Rev., Oct. 1888, p. 140. In the first part of the Sermon of Swearing, a quotation from Wisdom is intro- duced by the words : ‘ Almighty God by the wise man saith,’ + Churton, Uncanonical and Apoer. Scripture, Introd. p, 21. { Salmon, Gen. Introd. (/.c.) p. xxxvii. § A full list of these is given in Perry, Hist. of the Eng. Church, i. pp. 105, 106. ' ; || Authorized Edition, p.

140. Scrivener notes that Dr Robert Gell in his Essay, 1659, formed a like unfavourably opinion of the revision of the Apocr. in the AV. VERSIONS (ENGLISH) hardly fail to strike the reader, though it might not occur to him to ascribe it to its true cause— simple negligence. This is the scarcity of words in italics, or, in case of the early black, letter editions, in small Roman type. As first published, there were only fifty-four examples to be found in the whole Apocrypha.

‘ In fact only three instances occur at all later than Sir 454, after which [], or sometimes (), are substituted in their room.’ * It may be of service for forming a just estimate of the merits of the AV and RV respectively, so far as the Apocr. is concerned, to set down two or three short extracts, taken almost at random from the Bishops’ Bible, and notice some of the changes made in the revisions of 1611 and 1895. The copy of the Bishops’ Bible used is one of the 2nd ed. of 1572.

The first passage taken shall be from the description of a friend in Sir 6. And here we are struck at the outset by the advantage the later Revisers have gained in recognizing, by a aton of parallelisms, the poetical character of the book. The same remark applies to Wisdom. This in turn suggests the question: why, if the principle of stichometry was admitted in the case of the Sapiential books, it should have been ignored in other parts of the Apocrypha.

Why should it not have been applied to portions, at least, of Baruch, to the psalmie Prayer of Manasses, and to the Song of the Three Children ? The result, as we have it, seems to point to a want of uniformity of plan. Siracu 6 (Bishops’ Bible, 1572) 6 Holde frendship with many, neuerthelesse haue but one counseller of a thousande. 7 If thou gettest a freende, prooue him first, and be not hasty to geue hym credence.

8 For somme man is a freende but for his owne turne, and wyl not abide in the day of trouble. 9 And there is somme freende that turneth to enmitie, and taketh part agaynst thee: and yf he knoweth any hurt by thee, he telleth it out. 10 Agayne, somme freende {s but a companion at the table, and in the day of neede he continueth not. 11 But in thy prosperitie he wyl be as thou thee selfe, and deale eg Aen thy householde folke.

12 Ii thou be brought lowe, he will be agaynst thee, and wyl be hydden from thy face. Here, in v.6, for ‘Holde frendship,’ etc., the AV has, more literally, ‘Be in peace with many’; the RV, still more exactly, ‘Let those that are at peace with thee be many ’—ol sipnvedovees co tocroouy woAdoi, In y.7, for ‘If thou gettest’ (Coverdale and Bish.)'the AV and RV needlessly, ‘If thou wouldest get.

’ It is exactly ‘If thou art getting’ (or ‘acquiring’), s xtaees, For ‘to geue hym credence’ (so, too, Cov.), the AV, not so well, ‘to credit him.’ The RV, more simply, ‘to trust him.’ In v.8, for the cumbrous ‘somme man is,’ etc., retained by the AV, the RV has, more neatly, ‘there is a friend that is so for,’ etc. Not to delay over lesser matters, # more important question is, What is the friend referred to in vv.11-12? Is it a faithful friend (so the Lat.

‘Amicus si permanserit fixus,’ followed by Cover- dale, ‘But a sure frende,’ etc.), or is it the time-server of v.10? The Bish. and AV are undoubtedly right in taking the latter view, but obscure the sense by beginning v.11 with ‘ But’ instead of ‘And.’ The RV makes the meaning clear— ‘ And in thy prosperity he will be as thyself, And will be bold over thy servants : If thou shalt be brought low, he will be against thee, And will hide himself from thy face.

’ ‘Be bold over’ is not a happy rendering of reppyoidosres ivi, * will be plain-spoken with.’ Sus 52 (Bishops’ Bible, agreeing with Coverdale), “When they were put asunder one from another, he called one of them, and sayd vnto hym, O thou olde cankarde carle, that haste vsed thy wickednesse so long, thyne vngratious deedes whiche thou haste donne afore, are now comme to lyght.’ In this passage the interest centres on the vigorous para- phrase (‘O thou... long’) of rerarnsmutve iuepaiv xaxdv.

The AV has the less forcible but terser rendering, ‘O thou that art waxen old in wickedness,’ and this is retained in the RV. At * Scrivener, ib. p. 72. Some have thought that in the RV the use of italics is overdone. See the point raised in the JQR, vol. viii. (1895-96), pp. 322, 323, where ‘a Greek place of exercise’ is censured as the rendering of yuyzveciov in 2 Mac 49.

12, In Sir 223 (wrongly cited as 12%) ‘a foolish daughter is 5orn to his loss,’ the reviewer shows good cause for omitting foolésh. But it is justifixd by the parallelism of the passage. VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 267 the same time it should be observed that raAcsotebxs ig not a mere synonym of yxpéoxey (cf. He 813), but involves the notion of becoming stale, decrepit, worn out (Lk 1283). Nor is ‘ wicked ness’ quite adequate as a translation of juspay xaxwv.

On the other hand, the rendering in the RV of #zaou by ‘are come hone to thee’ is excellent. Wis 722-25 (Bishope’ Bible, here differing much from Cov.) 22 For Wisdome, whiche is the woorker of al thinges, hath taught me: for in her is the spirite of vnderstandyng, whiche is holy, one only, manifolde, subtile, quicke, moouing (marg. or liuely), vndefiled, plaine, sweete, louyng the thing that is good, sharpe, whiche can not be letted, dooing good.

23 Kinde to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, hauyng al vertues (marg. or power), circumspect in (marg. or hauyng regard of) al thynges, and passing through al vnderstandyng, cleane and subtile spirits. 24 Wor wisedome is nimbler than al nimble thinges, she goeth through and atteyneth to al thinges, because of her cleannesse, 25 For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowyng from the glory of the almyghty [God]; there- fore can no defiled thing comme vynto her.

The spirit of Divine Wisdom is here described by a string of epithets, numbering in the Greek text twenty-one (7x3), Th» rendering of the AV is a great improvement on that of the earlier versions. In the RY, where further changes are made there is a slight tendency to diffuseness.

Thus voepov, ‘intelli- gent’ (‘understanding,’ AV), becomes ‘quick of understand- ing’; evxivnrov, ‘mobile’ (‘lively,’ AV, with which compare the double sense of ‘quick’), becomes ‘freely moving’; spavov, ‘penetrating,’ ‘distinct’ (‘clear,’ AV), becomes ‘clear in utter- ance,’ as if to harmonize with the Lat. ‘disertus.’ The render- ing of “ovoyevés by ‘alone in kind’ also seems doubtful.

On the other hand, ‘unhindered’ is a terser rendering of éxdauroy than ‘which cannot be letted’ (AV): and there are several others of this type. One of the minor defects pointed out in the RV of the Apocr. is a want of consistency in the spelling of proper names. The Revisers, in their Preface, show themselves aware of this, and plead in mitigation the difficulty of securing ‘ uniformity of plan in the work of the four committees.’ But the fault lies deeper.

Inconsistencies are met with in the same verse. Thus in 2 Es 2}8, where the AV had consistently ‘Esay and Jeremy,’ the former is altered to ‘ Esaias’ in the RY, while the latter is left untouched. In 1* of the same book, one solitary change is made in a string of proper names—that of ‘ Aggeus’ to ‘Aggeus’; and this is left betwixt such incongruous forms as ‘ Nahum and Abacuc, Sophonias,... Zachary and Malachy.’ In Jth 8!

‘Elcia,’ as it is in the AV, is altered to ‘Elkiah,’ which represents neither the Hebrew form of the word (a:77n Hilkiah), nor the Greek (‘Edxecd), nor the Latin (Elai). More serious is the charge brought against the Revisers of neglecting the help which the Oriental Versions were capable of afiording them.

* For example, in Sir 25% they are content to reproduce the meaningless rendering of the AV, ‘ There is no head above the head of a serpent,’ without any hint of a better sense being procurable. Yet help is not far to seek. The Syriac version, as Eders- heim points out, is literally ‘there is not a head more bitter than the head of a serpent.

’ And this at once suggests—what Bissell and ethers had already perceived—that the Hebrew word, here rendered xegad7, ‘head,’ in the Greek, was prob- ably wx, which in Dt 32% and elsewhere denotes ‘venom.’ The meaning then becomes simple and natural, ‘There is no poison above (more virulent than) the poison of a serpent.’ Or, again, take Sir 51" ‘I called upon the Lord, the Father of my Lord.’ If the words had been written from a Christian point of view, they would have been unexceptionable.

But such was not the point of view of Jesus Ben Sirach. ‘The Syriac shows us,’ writes Edersheim, ‘that the original text signified, ‘unto the Lord, my father, O Lord.’ It is but fair to add that, in two at least of the books, Wisdom and 2 Esdras, the Versions have been freely resorted to, and with happy effect. In 2 Esdras, more particularly, the Greek original of * In an able review of the revised Apocr., which appeared im the Times of Nov.

19, 1895, this charge is preased home, 268 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) which is not extant, many passages have been zorrected through this means. A single chapter will furnish sufficient instances. In 2 Es 38 the AV has ‘thou didst set fast the earth,’ which does not suit the context. The verb in the Arabic version is rendered by Gildemeister concussisti, which justifies the translation of the RV, ‘Thou . didst shake the earth’ (as if écecas had been corrupted to éornoas). Inv.

*is asingular diversity of rendering: ‘and so shall thy name nowhere be found but in Israel’ (AV); ‘and so shall it be found which way the scale inclineth’ (RV). The Arabic again bears out the RV. In the Latin, as Hilgenfeld suggested, momentum may have got perverted to nomen tuum. Other examples will be found in vv.” 28-99 of this same chapter. But, on the whole, the Oriental Versions might have been consulted with profit to a much greater extent than they appear to have been.

There are a few instances of conjectural emen- dation of the text, one or two of which deserve mention. One of the most felicitous is noted in the margin of 2 Mac 73°, By the slight change of memTadkact to rerdxact the construction is simplified, and the sense altered from ‘ having endured a short pain that bringeth everlasting life, have now died under God’s covenant,’ to ‘having endured a short pain, have now drunk of everflowing life under God’s covenant.

’ Another, the merit of which is assigned to Dr. Hort,* is admitted to the text of 2 Mac 44, It consists in reading MeveoOéws, ‘son of Menestheus’ (as in v.”!) for the inappropriate waiverdar &ws (or rather, ws), ‘did rage as,’ ete. In 2 Es 188 the Revisers give ‘ O father’ (pater, Cod. 8) in place of ‘brother’(AV). But neither is suitable, the speaker being God.

Bensly suggested that the true reading in the Greek might have been sept- Brewor, circumspice, and that the contracted form of zep{ had got mistaken for one of rdérep. But this conjecture, though ingenious, was not acted upon.t Subjoined are some examples of changes of rendering made by the Revisers, which have met with approval, or the reverse :— (A) Changes generally approved, AV 1611. Sir 2211 make little weeping for the dead, for he is at rest.

Bar 68 God bringeth them unto thee exalted with glory, as children of the kingdom. Pr. Man! O Lord, Almighty God of... ete 1 Mac 221 God forbid... 1 Mac 1163 purposing to re- move him out of the country. 2Mac 49 to write them of Jerusalem by the name of An- tiochians. 2 Mac 80 the battle that they had in Babylon with the Gala- tians. RV 1895. Sir 2211 weep more sw for the dead, use he hai found rest.* Bar 56 God bringeth them in unto thee borne on high with giory, as on a royal throne. t Pr.

Man! O Lord Almighty . . thou God of, etc. 1 Mac 221 Heaven forbid...{ 1 Mac 1163 purposing to re- move him from his office.§ 2 Mac 49 to register the in- habitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch. } 2 Mac 820 the help given inthe land of Babylon, even the battle that was fought against the Gauls. 7 (B) Changes not so approved, or not made where needed. AV 1611. 1 Es 489 With her there is no accepting of persons or re- wards.

Jth 1611 Then my afflicted shouted for joy, and my weak ones cried aloud; but they (m. the Assyrians) were astonished : these lifted up their voices, but they were overthrown. Wis 87 she teacheth temper- ance and prudence, justice and fortitude. Wis 1115 being deceived they worshipped serpents void of reason, and vile beasts. Sir 62 that thy soul be not torn in pieces asa bull [straying alone]. Sir 2414 I was exalted likea palm tree in En-gaddi. RY 1896. 1 Es 489 (the same).

* Jth 16 Then bn lowly ones shouted aloud, And my weak ones were terrified and crouched for fear: They lifted up their voice, and they were turned to flight. tt Wis 87 she teacheth soberness and understanding, righteous- ness and courage. ff Wis 1115 they were led astray to worship irrational reptiles and wretched vermin. §§ Sir 62 that thy soul be not torn in pieces as a bull jf Sir 2414 I was exalted like a palm tree on the sea shore. 7 Wdi0v xAnvooy x+7.2., Modicum plora (Lat.)

t as Opovov Baosrrsios. Lat.), followed by the AV, For ¢pévev some MSS read wlobs (filios, ¢ As the Revisers note in their Preface, the words ‘God’ and ‘the Lord’ never occur in the best Greek text of 1 Maccabees, See the point fully discussed in Fairweather and Black’s ed. of 1 Mac. (Camb. Bible), 1897, Introd. p. 46. § xpeias, ‘office,’ is a better supported reading than xépas, ‘country,’ which has very little authority. || "Avrioysis &veypeves.

The rendering of the AV throughout this passage needs emending in several points. Thus 3/ Z < byt AV 1611. 1 Es 138 And he bound Joacim and the nobles. 1 Es 421 He sticketh not to spend his life with his wife. 2 Es 1442 and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not. Jth 39 near unto Judea (m. or Dotea). Ad. Est 135 differing in the strange manner of their laws. Wis 14 the body that is sub- ject unto sin.

Wis 73 and fell upon the earth, which is of like nature. Wis 1718 a pleasing fall of water running violently. Sir 1515 If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithful- ness, RV 1895. 1 Es 138 And Joakim bound the nobles. 1 Es 421 And with his wife he endeth his days. 2 Es 1442 and they wrote by course the things that were told them, in characters which they knew not.f Jth 39 nigh unto Dotwa [i.e Dothan]. Ad.

Est 135 following per- versely a life which is strange to our laws.§ Wis 14 a body that is held in pledge |] by sin. Wis 73 and fell upon the Kindred earth (6uooraby... yy). Wis 1718 a measured fall, ete. 7 Sir 1515 If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments ; And to perform faithfulness is of thine own good plea- sure. * London Quarterly Rev., April 1896, p. 6. + On the value of Mr. R. L.

Bensly’s assistance in this section of the work, and the facts connected with his discovery of the ‘missing fragment’ of 2 Esdras, see a full and discriminating review of the revised Apocr. in the Guardian of 24th Dec. 1895, { The RV translates the text adopted by Bensly (Fourth Book of Ezra, 1896), in which, ea successione, the reading of Cod. C, displaces the meaningless excessiones of the Latin. The cor- rection of noctis to nots is borne out by the Eastern versions. § Gr.

dieymyiy vena Leviovrny rapurarcovoy. ; || xarcéepen, oppignerato, | fuOu0s Ddceres wopevontvov Bie. But is ‘fall’ a necessary part of the idea? The context seems to point to fvbu0s being ‘the measured sownd’ or cadence. ** The construction of the second clause in the Greek—xa) wietsy wernous svdoxias—is disput ews (v.8) is translated ‘by intercession,’—a meaning which the word bears in 1 Ti 21, but inappropriate here. Data ver con- gresswm occasione is Wahl’s explanation.

{ It is with some hesitation that this passage is placed among the improved renderings. As to the construction, the words civ iv 7% B. should probably be connected, not with dyriambi, but with the following raperagiy. The reading of several MSS, why tv 7 B. xpos rovs Vardras yevopeevny maparakiv, aeRO this view. The marg. note, ‘Gr. Galatians,’ appended to ‘Gauls,’ is confusing. TadAxrx: may mean Galatians; but, like Kéaras, it may also mean Gauls. The question is, which does it mean here?

See Bissell’s note on 1 Mac 82, ** The Gr. says nothing about rewards : ox ters rap’ atTH ..6 diegopa, Truth ‘indifferently ministers justice.—Other passages in this book, where the rendering of the AV needs correctio: are 220 ‘are now in hand’ (évepyerras, ‘are being pushed on’), an 891 ‘children’ (veevioes, “youths’). {t+ The sense is obscured by this rendering. The fault is due (as was pointed out by a reviewer in the Times, before quoted) to the true parallelism not being observed.

When properly arranged, the first two clauses refer to the Israelites, the last two to their enemies— Then my lowly ones raised their battle-cry (,AcAaay), And my weak ones gave a shout (Goncev, not epoBG0nowy) 5 And they (the Assyrians) were afirighted, They lifted up their voice (in fear) and were overthrown tt The names of the four cardinal virtues, needlessly altered. S$ ccroya ipriraz xx) xvddarw svrsay.

—lf ‘creeping things’ be substituted for ‘serpents,’ the rendering of this clause in the AV may perhaps be judged preferable. ||| The simile has no meaning. The Lat. couples velut taurus with Non te eatollas, etc., preceding, and thus makes sense; but the reading differs widely from the Greek. Mr. Ball (Variorum Apocrypha, in loc.)

suggests ‘as by a bull’; come paring, for the construction, the LXX of Is 517 and Jer 5011, qs] The Vatican MS has éy c/y:eAcis ‘on beaches,’ which the Revisers follow. But, as Edersheim pertinently remarks, ‘palms are not supposed to attain any special height by the sea shore’; whereas En-gedi of the Amorites, as its other name Hazazone tamar shows, was noted for its palm trees. The Cod. Sinait., by second-hand, has sy svyaddo0; the Lat. in Cades; the Arabi ‘at the fountain of Gad.

’ Hence the AV is most probably right. Kautzsch (Apok, u. Pseud., 1900) accepts Engeddt, VERSIONS (ENGLISH) AV 1611. RY 1895. Sir 2427 He maketh the doc- _ Sir 2427 That maketh instruc- trine of knowledge appear as tion to shine forth as the light.* the light. Sus 45 (the same). t Sus 45 a young youth. 1 Mac 348 And laid open the 1 Mac 848 and laid...

con- book of the law, wherein the cerning which the Gentiles were heathen had sought to paint wont to inquire, seeking the the likeness of their images. likenesses of their idols. t 1 Mac 6* and supposing that 1 Mac 64 and the king the king was upon him. seemed § to be upon him. 1 Mac 662 Then the king 1 Mac 662 And the king en- entered ... but when he saw tered... andhesaw... and ».. he brake, etc. set at nought... and gave oe ell On the whole, a study of the RV of the Apocr.

cannot fail to make us aware of the great amount of work still to be done before such a translation as we desire to see can be produced: work in settling the text, in harmonizing proper names, in elucidat- ing obscure passages. But it cannot fail to make us conscious also of the vast amount of work done. That there are inequalities in the workmanship none willdeny. Wisdom is better done than Sirach, 2 Mac. than 1 Maccabees.

But let the fair-minded reader take any of these books, and compare care- fully the rendering of a few consecutive chapters in them with that in the AV. He will meet, no doubt, with changes that he demurs to as uncalled for or even wrong. He will be 1rplexed, on the other hand, by the seeming negl.ct of alterations, where he had thought them necessary.

But for one such case he will find a score, in which the new version is an improvement upon the old, in point of exactness, or finish, or consistency of diction. The Revisers have at any rate thrown down the gage, and may now say to their critics: St non placebit, reperitote rectius. x. THE ‘ AMERICAN REVISED’ VERSION, ** 1900 and 1901.—With the completion of their work in 1885, the English members of the joint Revision Company regarded their corporate existence as at anend.

The American members retained their or- ganization. In assigning the copyright to the two University Presses, it had been stipulated that for fourteen years every copy issued from those presses should contain in an appendix the readings pre- ferred by the Americans ; and that the latter, for their part, should give their sanction to no other * A comparison of vv.2-27 shows that the similes are taken from rivers:—Pishon and Tigris, Euphrates and Jordan, 2 and Gihon.

Hence, from considerations of symmetry, 2 should re- present, not ‘light,’ or anything of the kind, but the name of a river. Edersheim thinks that the Greek translator had N5 before him, which in Am 88 and elsewhere means not ‘as the light,’ but ‘as the river’ (7.e. the Nile), as if 1X)>; and that he wrongly took the former rendering. —See the review in the London Quarterly, before cited, p. 7. t Gr. raidapiov vewrépov, ‘a young lad’ (Bissell). Of.

Jn 69 { The RV follows the best-supported reading of the Greek. But Fritzsche, on the authority of some cursives, with the Complut. and the Aldine of 1518, inserts rot ixiypagey ia’ abray before r& suosduate. Such a mode of desecrating the sacred books would be intelligible. Other pp earagire may be seen in Bissell.

All that is here contended for is, that the RV takes no account of the plural in srépi dy, makes éZnpsivwy do double duty for ‘were wont to inquire, seeking,’ and gives a very obscure sense. § The AV appears to have followed the reading of some cursives, #747, ‘he (Eleazar) supposed.’ The RV adopts the common reading 40%, better taken impersonally (see Grimm), *it seemed that,’ just as in the Lat.

, ‘et visum est ei quod ; 1 "This is cited as an instance of the paiuciple, very closely observed throughout this book, of paralazis, or co-ordination, as distinguished from subordination, of clauses. By retaining this peculiarity, the Revisers have reproduced more exactly the form of the original, but at the cost of sacrificing English idiom. {| A help towards this has been gained by the introduction, in 1898, of marginal references throughout the RV.

** «The | Holy Bible | containing the | Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues | being the version set forth A.b, 1611 | compared with the most ancient authorities and revised | A.p. 1881-1885 | newly Edited by the American Revision Committee | a.p. 1901 | Standard Edition | New York | Thomas Nelson & Sons.’ | VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 269 version for the same number 2f years.

It became evident, however, as time went on, that the American Revisers would not be content with a version in which the renderings they preferred were permanently consigned to an appendix. Ac- cordingly they continued their labours, it might almost be said without interruption from 1885; and the result has been a fresh recension of the RV of the NT in 1900, and of the whole Bible in 1901. The book is well printed by Thomas Nelson & Sons, of New York.

Each page has two columns, The space running down the middle of each is occupied by marginal references. Various readings printed in italics are grouped at the foot of each column, or in the side margins, according to the size of the book. Along the top of each page runs a headline summarizing the contents of that page. The Apocryphal books are not included. The titles present several noticeable variations from the customary form.

The NT title-page begins : ‘The New Covenant, commonly called The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour,’ but the title of the whole Bible (there being no separate title of the OT) does not exhibit the word ‘cove- nant.’ ‘§.’ for Saint is not prefixed to the names of the writers of the NT.

‘The Acts’ is the sole title of the historical book ; The Epistle to the Hebrews bears no author’s name; the term ‘ general’ is discontinued before the Catholic Epistles ; and the last book is simply ‘ The Revela- tion of John.’ In their Preface the translators indicate with clearness the ends they chiefly desire to attain. The principal of these are: that the name ‘ Jehovah’ be inserted, wherever it occurs in the Hebrew, instead of ‘LORD’ or ‘God,’ which had hitherto taken its place.

That ‘Sheol’ in the OT and ‘ Hades’ in the NT be used to express that unseen world which had been imperfectly or inconsistently denoted by ‘the grave,’ ‘the pit,’ ‘Gehenna.’ Throughout the NT they would replace ‘Holy Ghost’ by ‘ Holy Spirit.” The translators desire to bring the diction as much as possible into har- mony with that in use at the present time.

To this end they would always write ‘who’ for ‘ which,’ when referring to persons ; ‘ are’ for ‘ be,’ in using the indicative ; and so on in many other instances. It is obvious that in this last respect consistency cannot be ensured at once ; and fault will no doubt be found with the new revision on the ground of want of uniformity.

To advert for a moment to the special objects first spoken of as desirable, there can be little doubt that the restoration of the name ‘Jehovah’ will be a gain, wherever special stress is laid on it as that of the God of the etrewe, as in Ex 314. 15, But in many other passages, notably in the Psalms, the frequent repetition of the name cannot but be felt a burden—a result which was avoided under the old system by the use of two short but impres- sive words, ‘ Lord’ and ‘ God.

’ * Whether the words ‘Sheol’ and ‘ Hades,’ one or both, will ever become naturalized in the English Bible is not easy to forecast. We have assimilated ‘Sabbath’ and ‘ Pentecost,’ and many more such terms. Why, it may be asked, not these also? Experience alone can decide. So in the case of ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘ Holy Ghost.’ There can be no question about the in- trinsic merit of the former.

The one great objec- tion to making the change is that ‘ Holy Ghost’ has become so deeply embedded in the creeds and formularies of the Gharet that it would be difficult *In Pss 1-41 the name ‘Jehovah’ occurs 272 times, and in Pss 90-150 it occurs 339 times (see Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Intro duction, p. 55). 270 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) to displace it. This holds good of the American Church as well as of our own.

It will perhaps be most serviceable to the reader tb» set down a few passages in which the new recension may be instructively compared with its immediate predecessor. It will be noticed in how many instances the American Version reverts to that of 1611. Ec 125 ‘desire shall fail’ (Am. RV); ‘the caper-berry shall fail’ (RV). This would not be intelligible without the help of acommentator. It is explained that caper-berries were eaten before meals to give a whet to the appetite.

If they failed to do so, it might be a sign of the coming on of old age. Dt 32! ‘with the finest of the wheat’ (Am. RV); ‘with the fat of kidneys of wheat’ (RV, retaining the Hebrew figure of speech, by which the choicest parts of an animal for sacrifice were taken to ex- press what was finest in other objects. See Ex FES a Zec 44 ‘these are the two anointed ones’ (Am. RY); ‘the two sons of oil’ (RV, retaining the Hebraism in its unmodified form). Jer 17° ‘The heart is . .

exceedingly corrupt’ (Am. RV); ‘the heart is... desperately sick’ (RV). Jg 5% ‘lead away thy captives’ (Am. RV); ‘lead thy captivity captive’ (RV). Pr 13% ‘the way of the transgressor is hard’ om RV); ‘the way of the treacherous is rugged’ Ac 17% “Ye men of Athens, in all things I per- ceive that ye are very religious’ (Am. RV); ‘some- what superstitious’ (RV).

It is noticeable how the influence of the Vulgate has drawn all the English Versions, down to the AV inclusive, into rendering decotdacwoveorépovs by some form of ‘superstitious. But it is certain that St. Paul would not have raised a prejudice against himself by using an offensive term at the very outset of his address. Hence ‘religious’ (a sense in which the word is used by Josephus) is wisely taken as its equivalent.

But in prefixing ‘very’ the American translators obscure the delicate shade of meaning in the com- parative. Ph 28 ‘who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped’ (Am. RV); ‘who, being . . counted it not a prize. ’(RV). This rendering of irdp- xwv by ‘existing’ is a distinct improvement on the ‘being’ of the RV.

‘Prize’ (RV) renders more neatly than the later equivalent the dprayudy of the Greek, but not so literally (see Moule’s note on the passage). ‘Grasped’ should rather be ‘grasped at.’ 1Th 2* ‘might have claimed authority’ (Am. RV); ‘might have been burdensome’ (RV, with ‘claimed honour’ in the margin). The Greek is ambiguous, Suvduevan ev Bdpa elva. The use of émiBaphoa in v.® in the sense of ‘ prove a burden to,’ seems to carry év Bdpe elva: with it.

But, as Ellicott points out, this is counterbalanced by the close connexion of the clause with dééay, so that the American Revisers aed be right. 2 Ti 2% ‘having been taken captive by him unto his will’ (Am. RV); ‘having been taken captive by the Lord’s servant unto the will of God’ (RV). In aiming at perspicuity the RV has given a com- ment rather than a translation. The Am. RV leaves an ambiguity in the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘his.

’ A point would be gained if ‘His’ were written with a capital letter. He 115 ‘for be hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well- * For this and one or two other examples the writer is in- debted to an appreciative article by Professor H. M. Whitney, in the April num of the Bibliotheca Sacra (Ohio), 1902. leasing unto God’ (Am.

RV); ‘before his trans- ition he hath had witness borne to him that he had been well-pleasing unto God’ (RV), The tenses speak for themselves, He 11 ‘now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen’ (Am. RV); ‘now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen’ (RV). The former of Pies renderings has been praised as much the better of the two.

But, as Westcott points out, ‘it is difficult to suppose that @\eyxos can express @ state’; and he himself gives ‘substance’ and ‘test’ for drécracts and é\eyxos. If, in the above examples, the advantage may be claimed for the American RV, the same can hardly be said in the case of those which follow :— Ex 20% ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Am. RV); ‘thou shalt do no murder’ (Prayer-Book Version and RV).

It is interesting to observe that each of these newest renderings has gone back to an earlier pattern,—the RV to that in the Prayer- Book, and the Am. RV to that of 1611. There is this merit in the last, that it harmonizes with the word used in our Lord’s summary of the Com- mandments (Mt 19%). But the word ‘kill’ does not necessarily imply a criminal act, and in so far the rendering of the Am. RV is inade- uate.

: Ps 24° «This is the generation of them that seek after him, that seek thy face, even Jacob’ (Am. RY); ‘. that seek a face, O God of Jacob’ (RV). The difficulty lies in supplying the ellipse ‘O God of.’ It is admitted that, i the Massoretic text be followed, the first of these renderings is the right one; but in that case, as Kirkpatrick points out, ‘the construction is harsh ; a vocative is needed after thy face; and Jacob does not by itself convey this sense.

’ His conclusion is that ‘the AVm and RV rightly follow the LXX, Vulg., and Syr. in reading ‘“‘ God of Jacob.”’ Ps 1482 ‘young men and virgins’ (Am. ead) ‘young men and maidens’ (RV). What is gain by the change ? Lk 24% ‘Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?’ (Am. RV). Except in the spelling of the first word this rendering repeats that of the RV, and is therefore open to the same objection.

By retaining the co- ordinate construction with ‘and’ instead of the subordinate, the sense is missed. It should have been ‘by suffering these things to enter into his glory,’ or ‘to suffer these things and so enter,’ etc, This will be seen more clearly by comparing such a sentence as Mt 23% ‘these things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the others undone’ ; which would appear to charge the Pharisees with neglecting the ceremonial observances of the law.

The sense requires : ‘without therefore leaving the others undone.’ Ac 8 ‘The passage of Scripture’ (Am. RV); ‘The place of the Scripture’ (RV). The change of ‘place’ to ‘passage’ has not been made by the Am. RV in Lk 4". Gal 1 ‘am I. now seeking the favor of men, or of God?’ (Am. RV); ‘am I now persuading men, or God?’ (RV).

While it is admitted that a verb of kindred meaning with wel@w should be supplied by zeugma to govern Oecd, it does not seem necessary that the meaning of mel@w with dvOpdmrous should also be thus modified. Tit 18 ‘given to hospitality’ (Am. RV and RV) for the simple ‘hospitable’ (gAckevor). He 9'617 In this passage diadjxn is rendered ‘testament,’ not ‘covenant,’ both by the Am. RV and the RV.

But, as Westcott has shown, ‘there is not the least trace of the meaning ‘‘ testament” in the Greek Old Scriptures, and the idea of a VERSIONS (ENGLISH) ‘testament ” was indeed foreign to the Jews till S time of the Sens : ; a 1!” ‘every gi gift and eve erfect gift’ (Am. RV, in this agreeing with me MY): ee good gift and every perfect boon’ (RV). This atter rendering fails because ‘boon’ is not a cognate word to ‘ gift,’ as ddépyua in the original is to déets. The American fo aes.

in making ‘gift’ serve for both these terms, confess them- selves unable to surmount the difficulty. Rev 2% ‘as they are wont to say’ (Am. RV); ‘as they say’ (RV). The latter is preferable, the Greek being simply ds Aéyovew. The inference to be drawn from this brief com- parison of renderings, as well as from a more general survey of the work, is that it is prema- ture as yet to call it, as is done on the title-page, a ‘standard’ edition.

It seems evident that, even if the principles of the latest Revisers be admitted, a considerable time must elapse before they can be thoroughly carried out in practice. An illustration taken from one single department of the subject will suffice. In the case of archaic or Sbaclats words much progress has been made. Many a “howbeit’ has given place to ‘yet’; ‘or ever’ to ‘before’; ‘ evil entreated ’ to ‘ill-treated’; ‘meat’ to ‘food’; and the like. But how many still re- main!

‘Gendereth’ is altered to ‘ bring th forth’ in Gal 4%, but left unaltered in Job 38”. ‘ High- minded,’ which is now an epithet of praise, is left in 1 Ti 6" in the sense which it bore in the days of the Gunpowder Plot. ‘Took knowledge of’ for ‘recognized’ still remains in Ac 4%, ‘ Nephews’ is rightly changed to ‘ grandchildren’ in 1 Ti 54; but ‘piety,’ in the Latin sense of the word, still remains in the same passage.

We may see from these few instances that it is vain to hope that a standard edition of the English Bible will be soon forthcoming ; and still more vain to dream that the desired object has been attained already. That many improvements have been made upon the Revision of 1885, none would wish to deny. It is reasonable to anticipate that, when the next Revision is accomplished on this side the Atlantic, it may in its turn show a superiority in some respects over that of 1901.

But the end to be kept in view is not that the scholars of the two countries should pass and repass each other ‘adversi spatiis,’ but that they should advance ‘ facta pariter nunc pace.’ The aspiration to which utter- ance was given in the Preface to the Joint-Revision of the NT in 188], is not yet, we trust, out of season—that the labours of the fellow-workers, ‘thus happily united, may be permitted to beara blessing to both countries, and to all English- speaking people throughout the world.

’ , In concluding this article, the writer desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to his sons (espe- cially the Rev. J. M. Lupton, assistant master in Mariborough College) for much valuable help in the course of it. LiTErRaTuRE.—I. Abrahams, art. on the RV of the Apocr. in JQR, vol. viii. [1895-1896] Pp. 321-329; Chr. Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, 1845; E. Arber, The First Printed English NT, 1871; The Atheneum, 1885, pp..500-502, 562-565 (review of Mombert), ib. 1888, p. 243 (art.

on the rages Bible), 1889, ii. P. 246 (review of Edgar) ; onsite English Hexapla (Introduc- jon), n.d.; the Ven. Bede, Works, Plummer, 1896; J. A. Beet, ‘RV of NT’ in EHapos. 2nd ser. ii., iii.; W. Bender, Der Reformator J. Wiclif als Bibeliibersetzer, 1884; Bibliotheca Sacra (Andover), April 1858 and 1859, pp. 56-81 (early edd. of AY), tb. (Ohio), April 1899 (Cadmon); E. CO. Bissell, The Apo- erypha with a Revised Translation, n. d.; J. H. Blunt, art. on Eng. Bib. in Eneyc, Brit.

9; Bosworth-Waring, Pref. to The Gothic and A.. S. Gospels, 1865; H. Bradshaw, God/fried v. d. Haghen, 1886; British Museum, Cat. of . . Bibles, pt. i. 1892; Hugh Broughton, Works, ed. by John Lightfoot, 1662; J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1883 ; C2dmon’s Metrical Para- Phrase, ed. B. Thorpe, 1882; E. Cardwell, Docwmentary erences’, 1849; of the Eng. Annals, 1844, The Pare ag het sere 2 . J. G. Carleton, —— VERSIONS (ENGLISH) 271 Bible, 1902; The Catholic World (New York), 1871, pp.

149-170: The Christian Examiner and General Review (Boston), 1833, vol. xiv. pp. 327-371 (Eng. VSS); Church Quarterly, July 1885 Me RV of OT); T. K. Cheyne on RV Psalms and Isaiah, in Jxpos., 8rd ser. v., vi., vii.; A. S. Cook, Biblical Quotations in Old Eng. Prose Writers (Introd. on Old Eng. Bibl. Versions), 1898 ; F, OC. Cook, ‘ Deliver us from Evil,’ a Letter to the Bishop of London, 1881, The Rev. Version of the First Three Gospels, 1882, A Second Letter to the... Bp. of London, 1882; H.

Cotton, List of Editions of the Bible, 1852, Rhemes and Doway, 1855; M. Coverdale, Memorials of (anon.), 1838; A. B. David- son, ‘Jobin RV,’ Hapos., 8rd ser. iv. ; R. Demaus, Wm. Tyndale : A Biography, 1886; J. R. Dore, Old Bibles, 1888; 8S. R. Driver ‘Gen. to Josh. in RV,’ Hapos., 3rd ser. ii.; John Eadie, Tha Eng. Bible, 1876; Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter, ed. by F. Harsley, pt. i. 1889; Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1885 (RV of OT); A. Edgar, The Bibles of England, 1889; OC. J.

Ellicott, Con- siderations on Revision, 1870; T. S. Evans, ‘Crit. Remarks on RV,’ in Expos., 2nd ser. iii., v.; articles by various writers on the Failure of the RV, in Hapos. Times, iii., iv.; F. Field, Notes on the Translation ..., 1899; Forshall-Madden, The Holy Bible (Wyclifite Versions), 1850; F. Fry, Description of the Great Bible, 1539 ..., 1865, The Buble by Coverdale, 1867, Bibliogr. descr. of the edd. of NT, 1878; E. Gasner, Beitr. z. Entwickel- ungsgang d. neuengl. Schriftsprache...

wie sie auf Wycli u. Purvey zuriickgehen soll, 1891; F. A. Gasquet, Old Englis: Bible, 1897; R. Gell, Hssay toward the Amendment (of the AV), 1659; F. Graz, Beitr. z. Teatkritik Caedmons, 1896; The Guardian, 16th Feb. 1870 (Action of Convocation), 27th Nov. 1895 (letters on use of RV), 24th Dec, 1895 (review of RV of Apocr.); E. Harwood, A Liberal Tr. of the NT, 1768; J. Hey- wood, State of the Authorized Bible Revision, 1860, The Bible and its Revisers, 1857 ; H. W. Hoare, artt. on the Eng.

Bible in the Nineteenth Cent., May 1898, April 1899, Evolution of the Eng. Bible, 1901, 2nd ed. 1902; T. W. Hunt, Caedmon’s Exodus and Daniel; J. Jacobs, ‘Rev. OT’ in Bibl. Archeology, 1894 ; A. CO. Jennings and W. H. Lowe, ‘A Crit. Estimate of RV of OT,’ EHxpos., 3rd ser. ii.; B, H. Kennedy, Ely Lectures, 1882; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Anc. MSS, 1895; W. Kilburne, Dangerous Errors in. Bibles, 1659; J. A. Kingdon, Incidents in the Lives of Tho. Poyntz and Ric.

Grafton spe printed), 1896 ; A. F. Kirkpatrick, ‘ Judges to Neh. in RV,’ Hapos., 3rd ser. i, ii., iii., v.; M. Konrath, Beitr. z. Erkl. u. Teatkr. des William v. Schorham, 1878; G. V. Lechler, John Wyclif, tr. by P. Lorimer, 1884; J. Lewis, Life of Pocock, Pref. p. 13 ff., Com- plete Account of Translations . ., 2nd ed. 1739; J. B. Light- foot, On a Fresh Revn. of the English NT, 1871 (8rd ed. 1891, reprinting Letters in the Guardian, 7th, 14th, 21st Sept. 1881); W. J.

Loftie, A Century of Bibles, 1872; London Quarterly Review, 1896 (art. on the ‘RV of the Apocr.’); R. Lovett, The Printed Eng. Bible, 1525-1885, 1895; M‘Clellan, Four Gospels (Introd.), 1875; M‘Clintock-Strong, Cycl. (art. on Eng. VSS), 1873; G. P. Marsh, Lectures on the Eng. Language; E. Miller, The Oxford Debate on the Teatual Crit. of the NT, 1897; G. Milligan, The Eng. Bible, a Sketch of its History, 1895, and art. on VERSIONS (ENG.) in vol. iv. ; J. I. Mombert, Eng.

VSS of the Bible, 1883; The Month, June 1897, pp. 673-586, July 1897, Rp. 43-62 (Rheims and Douay); Sir T. More, A Dyaloge, 1630; W. F. Moulton, The Hist. of the Eng. Bible, 2nd ed. 1884; 8S. Newth, Lectures on Bib. Revision, 1881; Notes and Queries, 5th ser. x. pp. 261, 262 (Trevisa); G. Offor, MS Collections (Brit. Mus., Addl and Eg. MSS 26,670-26,673); The Ormulum, ed. R. M. White, 1878; A. G. Paspati, Remarks on the RV of the NT, 1883; T. H. Pattison, Hist. of the Eng.

Bible, 1894; Percy Society’s Publications, Religious Poems of Wm. de Shoreham, 1849; T. J. Pettigrew, Bibliotheca Sussexiana, vol. ii. 1889; C. Plummer, Pref. to Ven. Bede Hist. Eccl. 1896; E. H. Plumptre, art. on the AVin Smith’s DB; N. Pocock, artt. in The Biblio- rapher, vols. i.-iv. on the Bishops’ and Genevan Bibles; R. L, Roe Wyclif and Movements for Reform, 1886; Prime Wendell, Fifteenth Cent. Bibles, 1888; The Quarterly Review, April 1870, p. 129 ff., Oct. 1885, pp.

281-329 (RV of OT); R. Rolle, of Hampole, The Psalter ..., ed. H. R. Bramley, 1884; W. G. Rutherford, St. Paul's Ep. to the Romans (Introd.), 1900; W. Sanday, ‘RV of NT’ in Hxpos., 2nd ser. ii. ; P. Schatf, Companion to Gr. Test. 1883; J. Scholefield, Hints for an Improved Transl. ., 8rd ed. 1849; F. H. A. Scrivener, Supplement to the AV, 1845, The Authorized Ed. of the Eng. Bib. 1884; W. Selwyn, Notes on the Proposed Amendment of the AV, 1856; W. S. Simpson, Catalogue of St.

Paul's Cathedral Library, 1893; W. W. Skeat, The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon . ., ed. by W. W. 8. 1871-1877, Pref. to The NT in English (Purvey’s rev.), 1879, Dialect of Wyclif’s Bible (in Trans. of Philolog. Soc., pt. i. for . 1895-1896); W. E. Smith, A Study of the Great ‘She’ Bible, 1890; H. Stevens, Cat. of Bibles in the Caxton Celebr. 1877 ; Stevenson-Waring, The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Glosses (Surtees Society’s Publns., Nos. 28, 39, 43, 48); E. Thwaites, Heptateuchus . .. 1698; B.

Thorpe [see above, ‘Cxzdmon’]; The Times, 19th Nov. 1895 (review of RV of Apocr.); W. Tindale, see Lansdowne MSS (Brit. Mus.), 979, f. 150; R. ©. Trench, On the AV of the NT, in connexion with some Rec. Proposals for its Revn., 2nd ed. 1859; M. H. Turk, The Legal Code of King dilfred the Great, 1893; O. J. Vaughan, Auth. or Rev. 1882; R. 8. Watson, Cedmon..., 1875; B. F. Westcott, A Gen. View of the Hist. of the Eng.

Bible2, 1872, Bible in the Church, 1875, Some Lessons of the RV of the NT, 1897; 8. W. Whitney, Revisers’ Gr. Text; Lea Wilson, Bibles ... in the Collection of, 1845; John Wright, Karly Bibles of America, 1893; J. Wyclif, Hnglish Works of (ed. by F. D. Matthew, 1880), de Eccl. Notione (ed. F. Wiegand, 1891), Opus Evangelicwm 1895. H. Lupton. 272. DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE