Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture

by C. J. Ellicott

Almighty God that His saving truth should be revealed to the children of men. As the lamented Bishop of Durham says most truly and forcibly in his instructive “Lessons on the Revised Version of the New Testament [98a];” “Faithfulness, the most candid and the most scrupulous, was the central aim of the Revisers [98b].” Faithfulness, but to what? Certainly not to “the sense and spirit of the original, ” as our critics contended must have been meant by the rule,—but to the original in its plain grammatical meaning as elicited by accurate interpretation. This I can confidently state was the intended meaning of the word when it appeared in the draft rule that was submitted to the Committee of Convocation. So it was understood by them; and so, I may add, it was understood by the Company, because I can clearly remember a very full discussion on the true meaning of the word at one of the early meetings of the Company. Some alteration had been proposed in the rendering of the Greek to which objection was made that it did not come under the rule and principle of faithfulness. This led to a general, and, as it proved, a final

discussion. Bishop Lightfoot, I remember, took an earnest part in it. He contended that our revision must be a true and thorough one; that such a meeting as ours could not be assembled for many years to come, and that if the rendering was plainly more accurate and more true to the original, it ought not to be put aside as incompatible with some supposed aspect of the rule of faithfulness. Proposals were often set aside without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not “worth while” to make them, and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of a familiar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal being withdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, and not from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness. If the proposal was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and the matter authoritatively settled.

The contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisers deliberately violated the principles under which the work was committed to them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, entirely erroneous. I have dwelt upon this matter because when properly understood it clears away more than half of the objections that have been urged

against our Revision. Of the remainder I cannot but agree with good Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision—and the criticisms were of every form and kind “pedantry, spiritless literality, irritating triviality, destroyed rhythm,” and so forth—no criticism ever came upon us by surprise. The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heard in the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their conclusions they have heard since; and he goes on to say that no restatement of old arguments had in the least degree shaken his confidence in the general results. Such words from one now, alas, no longer with us, but whose memory we cherish as one of the most wide-minded as well as truth-seeking of the biblical scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure the partially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its real trustworthiness and fidelity. But we must not confine our attention simply to the renderings that hold a place in the text of the Revised Version. We must take into our consideration a very instructive portion of the work of the Revisers which is, I fear, utterly neglected by the general reader—the alternative readings and renderings that hold a place in the margin, and

form an integral portion of the Revision. Though we are now more particularly considering the renderings, I include here the marginal readings, as the relation of the margins to the Version could hardly be fully specified without taking into consideration the margin in its entirety. As readers of the Preface to the New Testament (very few, I fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly remember, alternative readings and renderings were prohibited in the case of the Authorised Version, but, as we know, the prohibition was completely disregarded, some thirty-five notes referring to readings, and probably more than five hundred to alternative renderings. In the fundamental rules of Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course was prescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on.

These alternative readings and renderings must be carefully considered, as in the case of renderings much light is often thrown on the true interpretation of the passage, especially in the more difficult portions of the New Testament. Their relation however to the actually accepted Version must not be exaggerated, either in reference to readings or renderings. I will make plain what I mean

by an example. Dr. Westcott specifies a reading of importance in John i. 18 where he states that the reading in the margin (“God only begotten”) did in point of fact express the opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in the text of the Version because it failed to secure the two-thirds majority of those present at the final revision. This, perhaps, makes a little too much of an acceptance at a somewhat early period of the labours of the Company. So far as I remember the case, the somewhat startling alteration was accepted at the first revision (when the decision was to be by simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of course continued up to the second revision. At that revision the then text and the then margin changed places. Dr. Hort, I am well aware, published an important pamphlet on the subject, but I have no remembrance that the first decision on the reading was alluded to, either at the second revision or afterwards, in any exceptional manner. It did but share the fate of numberless alterations at the first revision that were not finally confirmed.

The American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the reading in question with their English brethren; and the same too is the

judgement of Professor Nestle in his carefully edited Greek Testament to which I have already referred.

I have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am especially desirous to encourage a far greater attention to the margin than it has hitherto received, I am equally desirous that the margin should not be elevated above its real position. That position is one of subordination to the version actually adopted, whether when maintaining the older form or changing it. It expresses the judgement of a legal, if not also of a numerical, minority, and, in the case of difficult passages (as in Rom. ix. 4), the judgement of groups which the Company, as a whole, deemed worthy of being recorded. But, not only should the margin thus be considered, but the readings and renderings preferred by the American Committee, which will often be found suggestive and helpful. These, as we know, are now incorporated in the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible; and the result, I fear, will be that the hitherto familiar Appendix will disappear from the smaller English editions of the Revised Version of the Old and New Testament. It is perhaps inevitable, but it will be a real loss. All