Bradwell-Collection at Bradwell, £1 88 4d; Ditto at St. Just-Public Collection, £2 6s 7d ... ... ... Sowerby Bridge Audley Bath ... ... ... 1 1 0 1 15 6 Folkestone ... ... Glossop-Mr. J. Clayton, qly. 3s 030 0 6 0 Derby Collection at Brook Street Chapel for 1880, £5 11s 2d; Ditto for 1881, £3 18s 5d Huddersfield 1st-Mr. T. Armitage, 1s City Road-Mrs. Hambelton, hm. £1 1s; Mr. J. Taylor, Walsall-Mr. H. Hall, hc. 10s; Mr. J. Tildesley, hm. £1; ... ... ... ... 217 0 I 0 0 15 0 7 0 9 0 0 12 0 Thetford Aylesbury St. Albans Swaffham Bradford-Mr. J. Drummond, hm. (2 years) £2 2s; Mr. J. Norwich-Mr. F. Bullard, hm, £1 1s; Mrs. Metcalf, 2s 6d Dorchester-Collected by Bro. Bush, 10s 9d Keighley-Mr. W. Anderton, hm. £5; Mr. J. Heap, hc. 10s 6d; Mr. E. Myers, hc. 10s; Bro. J. F. Thorpe, hm. £1 1s South Shields--Mr. Giles, hm. £1 1s; Mr. G. Snaith, 2 qrs. 10s 12020142 4 0 8 0 0 18 0 5 0 0 18 0 1 0 4 0 9 0 Sheffield Hinde Street-Mr. Bousfield, 2s 6d; Mr. G. T. Cox, hc. £100 10 1 187 14 9 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Or all the literary undertakings of the present century-vast and varied as some of them were - there is not one of them of equal importance with the Revision of the Holy Scriptures, part of which is still in hand, and part now completed. Some time will elapse before the Old Testament Company will have completed its labours; but the work of the New Testament Company is done, after ten and a half years of assiduous mental toil, and the result is given to the world by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, under whose initiatory guidance it was begun. The project for revision, when first entertained, was regarded with jealous anxiety by many religious persons, who dreaded the consequences that might follow any unsettling of the Authorised Version. We never participated in such feelings in the slightest degree. We placed before the readers of this Magazine unanswerable reasons for revision (see vol. 21, pp. 45), and we rejoiced in the prospect of English readers being put in possession of a more accurate expression of the mind of God in their own tongue, as given in the Hebrew and Greek languages by men inspired by the Holy Ghost to write in those languages. It was no light undertaking for a company of learned men to revise a composite volume that had stood at the summit of universal literature for two and three-quarter centuries, and was regarded with reverence by millions of people, and acknowledged by scholars to be the best version of the Bible in any living tongue. A multitude of ancient manuscripts had to be read and compared; the quotations of early Christian writers had to be considered, the various senses in which a word was used by different writers, and sometimes by the same writer, had to be regarded; the mistakes made by some transcribers had to be tested by the apparent accuracy of others; diversity of idiom had to be compared and reconciled; words and modes of speech in our own tongue had to be exchanged for other words and forms of expression now current ; innumerable difficulties had to be overcome by patient, cautious, persevering labour. The sanction and commendation of the work and the workers, by all parties, was not to be expected. Many readers of the Scriptures who have long been familiar with the Authorised Version, and in whose mental fabric its language is interwoven as the pattern of the web wrought in a weaver's loom, will dislike many of the changes made by the revisers. Those who have some acquaintance with the original Scriptures will most appreciate the Revised Version; and next to them will be those whose acquaintance with general literature is beyond the common range, and whose literary taste is more correct and refined than can by possibility be the taste of those whose opportunities have been very limited. Criticism is the inevitable lot of all human productions. The Revised OCTOBER, 1881. Version has been already criticised in anything but a generous spirit. Men can easily depreciate what others have done, and what they are themselves unable to do. The Revisers have been charged with vanity, and accused of unworthy motives. We confess that we are disgusted with the vulgarity and bitterness of some of those who say all they can to depreciate the work and defame the workers. Is their ire aroused by the unwelcome discovery that a prop is struck from some favourite dogma or opinion by the altered structure of a text or a phrase on which they have been accustomed to rely? Whatever the motives, the style of attack is reprehensible. The new Version will, no doubt, pass through an ordeal of severe criticism from the pens of competent scholars. They will not concur in approval of all the changes made. Men who have been trained in different schools of theology, and under diverse influences, will naturally look upon words and things from their own distinctive standpoints. This difference has affected the Company of Revisers themselves, as inevitably it must, during the progress of their work. Its members were selected from different churches: Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Wesleyan, Baptist, and some other; men of the highest repute for Biblical scholarship in their several denominations. The co-operation of American scholars of similar reputation was invited, and rendered. In the nature of things they would differ as to the rendering of some words and clauses. Conference, correspondence, and argument, would bring them in some cases to unanimity of judgment. When that could not be effected, the only way of settling a disputed or doubtful point was by vote. One effect of this mode of carrying on the work would be to increase individual modesty and caution, diminishing self-confidence, and checking speculativeness, if there was any tendency thereto. And certainly the combination of such a body of learned men, drawn from so many ecclesiastical schools, was no small security against the misrendering of terms and texts by a biassed individual mind. Some readers of the Revised Version will, no doubt, be somewhat shocked by the omission of words, clauses, and even sentences, with which the Authorised Version has familiarised them. But whoever has studied any English commentary will be prepared for these omissions, as well as for many other changes in words and grammatical forms. The version of our Lord's form of prayer, as given in Luke xi. 2-4, is more bald than we expected to find it, or like to see it; but the notes at the foot of the page give several additions that are found in some manuscripts, and that are ascribed to "many ancient authorities." We are disappointed, too, by the retention of the harsh-sounding relative pronoun "which," in positions where, according to the teaching of nearly all modern English grammarians, who ought to have taken its place. The late Dean Alford's vindication of the almost obsolete application of the word "which" to persons, may have induced the Revising Company to retain it. To our ears, the form of words "Our Father, which art in heaven," has a very barbaric sound; and we regret that the Revisers have not exchanged "which" for who, in this and many other texts. An admirable preface to the work gives a considerable amount of valuable and interesting information in a comparatively small compass. Among the rest are five "fundamental Resolutions adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury," in reference to the proposed Revision in May, 1870. "1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken. "2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorised Version. "3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language except where in the judgment of the most competent scholars such change is necessary. “4. That in such necssary changes, the style of the language employed in the existing version be closely followed. "5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong." About three weeks after the adoption of these Resolutions, a Committee of Convocation gave its sanction to the following Principles and Rules: "1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness. "2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorised and earlier English Versions. "3. 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 Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin. "5. 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. In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next meeting. "7. To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation. v 2 "8. To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions." Such are the Rules by which the Revisers avow themselves to have been guided, and which they have endeavoured "faithfully and consistently to follow." One of them, however, and only one, they were "unable to observe in all particulars." They state the matter thus: "We have carefully revised the paragraphs, italics, and punctuation. But the revision of the headings of chapters and pages would have involved so much of indirect, and indeed frequently of direct interpretation, that we judged it best to omit them altogether." Can our readers imagine any course that could have been followed that would have afforded greater security against error, and for conserving the purity of "God's Word written," either in its original form, or in its English representative? We confess we cannot. And we think the English-speaking world is under unspeakable obligations to the scholarly men who have devoted their time, talents, and energies to this great enterprise. The clergy and people of the Established Church of England may be expected to accept with considerable reverence the boon presented to them, inasmuch as it is virtually the product of the authorities of their own Church in Convocation assembled. It was they who set the project in action, and laid down the lines on which it should move. Nonconformists may be expected to regard it with favour, inasmuch as their first-class men have contributed as freely as the others to its production. "Different schools of criticism," say the Revisers, "have been represented among us, and have together contributed to the final result. In the early part of the work every various reading requiring consideration was discussed and voted on by the Company. After a time the precedents thus established enabled the process to be safely shortened; but it was still at the option of every one to raise a full discussion on any par. ticular reading, and the option was freely used. On the first revision, in accordance with the fifth rule, the decisions were arrived at by simple majorities. On the second revision, at which a majority of two-thirds was required to retain or introduce a reading at variance with the reading presumed to underlie the Authorised Version, many readings previously adopted were brought again into debate, and either re-affirmed or set aside." So much as to settling, from the variations of manuscripts, the Text to be followed. And now as to English Revision. What do our Revisers say? “The alterations which we have made in the Authorised Version may be roughly grouped in five principal classes. First, alterations positively required by the change of reading in the Greek text. Secondly, alterations made where the Authorised Version appeared either to be incorrect, or to have chosen the less probable of two, possible renderings. Thirdly, alterations of obscure or ambiguous renderings into |