The following Resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury on Feb. 10, 1899, after the presentation of the Report of the Committee (well worthy of being read) by the Bishop of Rochester. The Report is numbered 329, and, with other Reports of Convocation, is sold by the National Society:—
“That in the opinion of this House the use of the Revised Version at the lectern in the public service of the Church, where this is desired by clergy and people, is not open to any well-founded objection, and will tend to promote a more intelligent knowledge of Holy Scripture.”
Among others may be named the Edinburgh Review for 1855 on Paragraph Bibles, in which it was said that it was now high time for another revision (p. 429); the Christian Remembrancer for 1856 on the Revision of the Authorised Version (an interesting article); the Quarterly Review for 1863, intimating that as yet we were not ripe for any authorised text or translation; the Edinburgh Review for 1865; and the Contemporary Review for 1868, a careful and elaborate article, contending that the work must be done by a Commission. In February, 1856, when Canon Selwyn gave notice of proposing a petition on the subject to the Upper House. The proposal in a somewhat different form a year afterwards was disposed of by a characteristic amendment of Archdeacon Denison. On July 22, 1856, Mr. Heywood, one of the members, I think, for North Lancashire, in rather an interesting speech, moved for an Address to the Crown to issue a Royal Commission on the subject. The motion was rejected, Sir George Grey expressing his conviction that the feeling of the country was not in accordance with the motion. Preface to the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel according to St. John by Five Clergymen, p. xii. As I remark afterwards, this preface proved to be very attractive, and by its moderation greatly helped the cause. The book has long since gone out of print, but if any reader of this note should come across it, this preface will be found well worth reading, as it will show what was in the minds of many beside the Five Clergymen five and forty years ago. See Schaff, Companion to Greek Testament and English version, p. 367, note (New York, 1883). The Expositor for October, 1892, pp. 241-255. The article was answered by me in the same periodical two months later. The account of the discussion in the Convocation of York (Feb. 23, 1870) will be found in The Guardian of March 2, 1870. In the comments of this paper on the action or rather inaction of the Northern Convocation a very unfavourable opinion was expressed, in reference to the manner in which the Southern Convocation had been treated. But these things have long since been forgotten. It may be interesting to give this list, as it slightly affects matter that will be alluded to afterwards in reference to the Greek text. The attendances were as follows: The Chairman, 405; Dr. Scrivener, 399; Prebendary Humphry, 385; Principal Newth, 373; Prof. Hort, 362; Dean Bickersteth (Prolocutor), 352; Dean Scott, 337; Prof. Westcott, 304; Dean Vaughan, 302; Dean Blakesley, 297; Bishop Lightfoot, 290; Archdeacon Lee, 283; Dr. Moulton, 275; Archdeacon Palmer, 255; Dean Stanley, 253; Dr. Vance Smith, 245; Principal Brown, 209; Principal Angus, 199; Prof. Milligan, 182; Prof. Kennedy, 165; Dr. Eadie, 135; Bishop Moberly, 121; Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), 109; Dr. Roberts, 94; Archbishop Trench, 63; Dean Merivale (resigned early), 19; Dean Alford (died soon after commencement), 16; Bishop Wilberforce, 1. This letter will be found in a very valuable Historical Account of the Work of the American Committee of Revision (New York, 1885), p. 30. This Historical Account was prepared by a special Committee appointed for the purpose in May, 1884, and was based on documents and papers arranged with great care by Dr. Philip Schaff, the President of the American Committee, and printed privately. These two volumes, the Historical Account and the Documentary History, contain the fullest details of the whole transactions between the American Committee and the English Companies and also the University Presses. Talbot W. Chambers, Companion to the Revised Old Testament (Funk and Wagnalls, New York and London, 1885), Preface, p. ix. A full account of the negotiation and copies of the letters which passed between the American Revisers and our own Revisers will be found in Part 2, p. 81 sqq. of the Documentary History, above referred to in the note at p. 36. A full account of this agreement and copies of the correspondence with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge will be found in Part 3, p. 91 sqq. of the Documentary History. Since the above was written, information reaches me that an American Standard Revision of the Bible either just has been, or shortly will be, published, which though not simply an incorporation of the recorded American preferences, as long specified in our copies of the Revision, is a publication resting on authority, and likely to put a stop to what is unauthorised. As the reader may like to know a little about this American Standard Revision of the Bible, I will, at the risk of a long note, mention what I have ascertained up to the present time. The survivors of the Old Testament Company (Dr. Osgood and others) with the three surviving members of the New Testament Company (Dr. Dwight, Dr. Riddle, and Dr. Thayer—very powerful helpers) have co-operated in bringing out a new edition of the Revision as it has been hitherto current in America. It will contain about twice as many deviations from the English Revised Version as appear in the original Appendices; but, in regard of them, the survivors give this important assurance, that “the survivors have not felt at liberty to make new changes of moment which were not favourably passed upon (sic) by their associates, at one stage or another of the original preparation of the work.” They specify that the original Appendix was prepared in haste and did not, in a satisfactory manner, express the real views of the Committee. They claim to have drawn up a body of improved marginal references, to have wholly removed archaisms, to have supplied running headings, to have modified what they consider unwieldy paragraphs, to have lightened what they regard as clumsy punctuation, and by typographical arrangements, such as by leaving a line blank, to have indicated the main transitions of thought in the Epistles and Apocalypse. These and other characteristics will be found specified in the American Sunday School Times for August 11, 1901, in an article apparently derived from those interested. Till we see the book we must suspend our judgement. See an article by Rev. J. F. Thrupp in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. art. Old Testament. Since the above was written a critical edition of the four Peshitto Gospels has been published by the Oxford University Press, based on the labours of the late Philip Edward Pusey, and Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, of Hertford College. The title of the pamphlet, which contains twelve letters from distinguished German Professors, with translations, is The Revision of the Old Testament (New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1886). The title of Dr. Salmon’s interesting volume is Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Murray, London, 1897). Salmon, p. 157. Ibid., p. 12. See below, pp. 98, 120. See the Preface to Dr. Rutherford’s Translation of the Epistle to the Romans, p. xi sq. (Lond. 1900). Hodder & Stoughton (Lond. 1897). Page 18. See page 32. Bible Studies, by Dr. G. Adolf Deissmann, Authorised Translation (Clark, Edinburgh, 1901). Page 175. London, Macmillan, 1898. Theologische Literaturzeitung, xix (vol. for 1894), p. 338. Bible Studies, p. 84 Transl. See, however, the translator’s note, p. 173, where the use of the term is explained. Grammar of New Testament Greek, § 38. 5, p. 118 (Transl.). See Chronicle of Convocation for February 10, 1899, p. 71 sqq. At the May Meeting of the present year.
