OF HOLY SCRIPTURE***


Transcribed from the 1901 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org





Addresses on the Revised
Version of Holy
Scripture.


                                    BY
                          C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,

                          BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER,
            AND HON. FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

          PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE.

                                 LONDON:
                SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,
       NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.; 43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.
                       BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET.
                     NEW YORK: E. & J. B. YOUNG & CO.
                                  1901.




PREFATORY NOTE.


The following Addresses form the Charge to the Archdeaconry of
Cirencester at the Visitation held at the close of October in the present
year.  The object of the Charge, as the opening words and the tenor of
the whole will abundantly indicate, is seriously to suggest the question,
whether the time has not now arrived for the more general use of the
Revised Version at the lectern in the public service of the Church.

                                                         C. J. GLOUCESTER.

_October_, 1901.




CONTENTS.
                                                                      PAGE
            ADDRESS I.  EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION                        5
               ,, II.  LATER HISTORY OF REVISION                       17
              ,, III.  HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT                           48
               ,, IV.  NATURE OF THE RENDERINGS                        81
                ,, V.  PUBLIC USE OF THE VERSION                      117





ADDRESS I.
EARLY HISTORY OF REVISION.


As there now seem to be sufficient grounds for thinking that ere long the
Revised Version of Holy Scripture will obtain a wider circulation and
more general use than has hitherto been accorded to it, it seems
desirable that the whole subject of the Revised Version, and its use in
the public services of the Church, should at last be brought formally
before the clergy and laity, not only of this province, but of the whole
English Church.

Twenty years have passed away since the appearance of the Revised Version
of the New Testament, and the presentation of it by the writer of these
pages to the Convocation of Canterbury on May 17, 1881.  Just four more
years afterwards, viz. on April 30, 1885, the Revised Version of the Old
Testament was laid before the same venerable body by the then Bishop of
Winchester (Bp. Harold Browne), and, similarly to the Revised Version of
the New Testament, was published simultaneously in this country and
America.  It was followed, after a somewhat long interval, by the Revised
Version of the Apocrypha, which was laid before Convocation by the writer
of these pages on February 12, 1896.

The revision of the Authorised Version has thus been in the hands of the
English-speaking reader sixteen years, in the case of the Canonical
Scriptures, and five years in the case of the Apocrypha--periods of time
that can hardly be considered insufficient for deciding generally,
whether, and to what extent, the Revised Version should be used in the
public services of the Church.

I have thus thought it well, especially after the unanimous resolution of
the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, three years ago {6},
and the very recent resolution of the House of Laymen, to place before
you the question of the use of the Revised Version in the public services
of the Church, as the ultimate subject of this charge.  I repeat, as the
ultimate subject, for no sound opinion on the public use of this version
can possibly be formed unless some general knowledge be acquired, not
only of the circumstances which paved the way for the revision of the
time-honoured version of 1611, but also of the manner in which the
revision was finally carried out.  We cannot properly deal with a
question so momentous as that of introducing a revised version of God's
Holy Word into the services of the Church, without knowing, at least in
outline, the whole history of the version which we are proposing to
introduce.  This history then I must now place before you from its very
commencement, so far as memory and a nearly life-long connexion with the
subject enable me to speak.

The true, though remote fountain-head of revision, and, more
particularly, of the revision of the New Testament, must be regarded as
the grammar written by a young academic teacher, George Benedict Winer,
as far back as 1822, bearing the title of a Grammar of the Language of
the New Testament.  It was a vigorous protest against the arbitrary, and
indeed monstrous licence of interpretation which prevailed in
commentaries on Holy Scripture of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.  It met with at first the fate of all assaults on prevailing
unscientific procedures, but its value and its truth were soon
recognized.  The volume passed through several successively improved
editions, until in 1855 the sixth edition was reached, and issued with a
new and interesting preface by the then distinguished and veteran writer.
This edition formed the basis of the admirable and admirably supplemented
translation of my lamented and highly esteemed friend Dr. Moulton, which
was published in 1870, passed through a second edition six years
afterwards, and has, since that time, continued to be a standard grammar,
in an English dress, of the Greek Testament down to this day.

The claim that I have put forward for this remarkable book as the
fountain-head of revision can easily be justified when we call to memory
how very patently the volume, in one or another of its earlier editions,
formed the grammatical basis of the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer,
and, here in England, of the commentary of Alford, and of critical and
grammatical commentaries on some of St. Paul's Epistles with which my own
name was connected.  It was to Winer that we were all indebted for that
greater accuracy of interpretation of the Greek Testament which was
recognized and welcomed by readers of the New Testament at the time I
mention, and produced effects which had a considerable share in the
gradual bringing about of important movements that almost naturally
followed.

What came home to a large and increasing number of earnest and
truth-seeking readers of the New Testament was this--that there were
inaccuracies and errors in the current version of the Holy Scriptures,
and especially of the New Testament, which plainly called for
consideration and correction, and further brought home to very many of us
that this could never be brought about except by an authoritative
revision.

This general impression spread somewhat rapidly; and soon after the
middle of the last century it began to take definite shape.  The subject
of the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament found a
place in the religious and other periodicals of the day {10a}, and as the
time went on was the subject of numerous pamphlets, and was alluded to
even in Convocation {10b} and Parliament {10c}.  As yet however there had
been no indication of the sort of revision that was desired by its
numerous advocates, and fears were not unnaturally entertained as to the
form that a revision might ultimately take.  It was feared by many that
any authoritative revision might seriously impair the acceptance and
influence of the existing and deeply reverenced version of Holy
Scripture, and, to use language which expressed apprehensions that were
prevailing at the time, might seriously endanger the cause of sound
religion in our Church and in our nation.

There was thus a real danger, unless some forward step was quickly and
prudently taken, that the excitement might gradually evaporate, and the
movement for revision might die out, as has often been the case in regard
of the Prayer Book, into the old and wonted acquiescence of the past.

It was just at this critical time that an honoured and influential
churchman, who was then the popular and successful secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Rev. Ernest Hawkins,
afterwards Canon of Westminster, came forward and persuaded a few of us,
who had the happiness of being his friends, to combine and publish a
version of one of the books of the New Testament which might practically
demonstrate to friends and to opponents what sort of a revision seemed
desirable under existing circumstances.  After it had been completed we
described it "as a _tentamen_, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality,
inviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the same
kind, calling the attention of the Church to the many and anxious
questions involved in rendering the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular
language, and offering some help towards the settlement of those
questions {12}."

The portion of Scripture selected was the Gospel according to St. John.
Those who undertook the revision were five in number:--Dr. Barrow, the
then Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford; Dr. Moberly, afterwards
Bishop of Salisbury; Rev. Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury;
Rev. W. G. Humphry, Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields; and lastly, the
writer of this charge.  Mr. Ernest Hawkins, busy as he was, acted to a
great extent as our secretary, superintended arrangements, and encouraged
and assisted us in every possible manner.  Our place of meeting was the
library of our hospitable colleague Mr. Humphry.  We worked in the
greatest possible harmony, and happily and hopefully concluded our
Revision of the Authorised Version of the Gospel of St. John in the month
of March, 1857.

Our labours were introduced by a wise and attractive preface, written
mainly by Dr. Moberly, in the lucid, reverent, and dignified language
that marked everything that came from the pen of the late Bishop of
Salisbury.

The effect produced by this _tentamen_ was indisputably great.  The work
itself was of course widely criticized, but for the most part favourably
{13}.  The principles laid down in the preface were generally considered
reasonable, and the possibilities of an authoritative revision distinctly
increased.  The work in fact became a kind of object lesson.

It showed plainly that there _were_ errors in the Authorised Version that
needed correction.  It further showed that their removal and the
introduction of improvements in regard of accuracy did not involve,
either in quantity or quality, the changes that were generally
apprehended.  And lastly, it showed in its results that _scholars_ of
different habits of thought could combine in the execution of such a work
without friction or difficulty.

In regard of the Greek text but little change was introduced.  The basis
of our translation was the third edition of Stephens, from which we only
departed when the amount of external evidence in favour of a different
reading was plainly overwhelming.  As we ourselves state in the preface,
"our object was to revise a version, not to frame a text."  We should
have obscured this one purpose if we had entered into textual criticism.

Such was the tentative version which prepared the way for authoritative
revision.

More need not be said on this early effort.  The version of the Gospel of
St. John passed through three editions.  The Epistles to the Romans and
Corinthians appeared in 1858, and the first three of the remaining
Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) in 1861.  The third
edition of the Revision of the Authorised Version of St. John was issued
in 1863, with a preface in which the general estimate of the revision was
discussed, and the probability indicated of some authoritative procedure
in reference to the whole question.  As our little band had now been
reduced to four, and its general aim and object had been realized, we did
not deem it necessary to proceed with a work which had certainly helped
to remove most of the serious objections to authoritative revision.  Our
efforts were helped by many treatises on the subject which were then
appearing from time to time, and, to a considerable extent, by the
important work of Professor, afterwards Archbishop, Trench, entitled "On
the Authorised Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent
proposals for its revision."  This appeared in 1858.  After the close of
our tentative revision in 1863, the active friends (as they may be
termed) of the movement did but little except, from time to time, confer
with one another on the now yearly improving prospects of authoritative
revision.  In 1869 Dean Alford published a small handy revised version of
the whole of the Greek Testament, and, a short time afterwards, I
published a small volume on the "Revision of the English Version," in
which I sought to show how large an amount of the fresh and vigorous
translation of Tyndale was present in the Authorised Version, and how
little of this would ever be likely to disappear in any authoritatively
revised version of the future.  Some estimate also was made of the amount
of changes likely to be introduced in a sample portion of the Gospels.  A
few months later, a very valuable volume ("On a Fresh Revision of the New
Testament") was published by Professor, afterwards Bishop, Lightfoot,
which appeared most seasonably, just as the long-looked-for hope of a
revision of the Authorised Version of God's Holy Word was about to be
realized.

All now was ready for a definite and authoritative commencement.  Of
this, and of the later history of Revision, a brief account will be given
in the succeeding Address.




ADDRESS II.
LATER HISTORY OF REVISION.


We are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative and
preparatory passed into definite and authoritative realization.

The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of
the Convocation of Canterbury.  The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the
Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be
desirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the
House, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the
indirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence
of the Northern Convocation.  The resolution was as follows:

    "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 Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of
    the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal
    notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors,
    whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the
    translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due
    investigation be found to exist."

In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by
the insertion of the words "Old and," so as to include both Testaments,
and, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once
sent down to the Lower House.  After debate it was accepted by them, and,
having been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the
arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.

Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far as
plainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thus
undertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocation
during its long and eventful history, followed every course, adopted
every expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the great
work it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.

It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with the
primary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed of
eight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regular
rule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, to
confer with the Convocation of York.  The members of the Upper House were
as follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids
(Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (Harold
Browne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon after
withdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself.

The members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth, Dean
of Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley),
and Lincoln (Jeremie); the Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter
(Freeman), and Rochester (Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons
Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De
Winton.

Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of
Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five
resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them,
were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in
the Lower House:

    "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 it 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, nor any alteration of the language, except
    where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change
    is necessary.

    4.  That in such necessary 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."

These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by
the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body.  The second and third
rules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the
emendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of
revision.  This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive,
but in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by
Convocation.  A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop
of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known
periodical {21} that the revisers "largely exceeded their instructions,
and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow."
This is a very grave charge, but can it be substantiated?  The second and
third rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt necessity
on the part of "the most competent scholars," and these last-mentioned
must surely be understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for
the work.  In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of
Convocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was to be
faithfulness to the original.  All then that can justly be said in
reference to the Revisers is this,--not that they exceeded their
instructions (a very serious charge), but that their estimate of what
constituted faithfulness, and involved the necessity of change, was, from
time to time, in the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated.
Such language however as that used in reference to the changes made by
the Revisers as "unnecessary and uninstructive alterations," and
"irritating trivialities," was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the
judgement arrived at.

But to proceed.  On the presentation of the Report it was stated that the
committee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, as
no committee had been appointed by them.  It was commonly supposed that
the Northern President (Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the
two Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very different
view {22}, as our President informed us that he had received a
communication from the Convocation of York to the effect that--"The
Authorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the
Established Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the
English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and
that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to
time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text.
That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a
committee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation
of Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified."

This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the Northern
Convocation.  We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were many
able and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we should
have heartily welcomed.  Delay, however, was now out of the question.
The working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the
Convocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed
revision.

The course of our proceedings was then as follows:

After the Report of the committee had been accepted by the Upper House,
and communicated to the Lower House, the following resolution was
unanimously adopted by the Upper House (May 3, 1870), and in due course
sent down to the Lower House:

    "That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to
    Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in the
    Report now adopted.  That the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids,
    Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely, Salisbury, Lincoln, Bath and
    Wells, be members of the committee.  That the committee be empowered
    to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from
    their biblical scholarship to aid them in their work."

This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that as
this was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact an
executive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinary
committees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House,
but simply an equal number.  This request, though obviously a very
reasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to
without some debate and even remonstrance.  This, however, was overcome
and quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of the
Prolocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by the
Lower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans of
Canterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford
(Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed
as members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.

This Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of choosing experts,
and, out of them and their own members, forming two Companies, the one
for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the
other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament.
Rules had to be drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying
out in detail of the whole of the proposed work.  In this work it may be
supposed that considerable difficulty would have been found in the choice
of biblical scholars in addition to those already appointed by
Convocation.  This, however, did not prove to be the case.  I was at that
time acting as a kind of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of
Dr. Moulton and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of
distinguished biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in
England and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be made.
When we met together finally to choose, there was thus no lack of
suitable names.

In regard of the many rules that had to be made for the orderly carrying
out of the work I prepared, after careful conference with the Bishop of
Winchester, a draft scheme which, so far as I remember, was in the sequel
substantially adopted by what I have termed the Permanent Committee of
Convocation.  When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870,
the names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed upon,
and invitations at once sent out.  The members of the Committee had
already been assigned to their special companies; viz. to the Old
Testament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who
soon after resigned), and Bath and Wells; and from the Lower House,
Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New
Testament Company, the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and
Salisbury; and from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of
Canterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.

Those invited to join the Old Testament were as follows:--Dr. W. L.
Alexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr.
B. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch,
Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne
Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr.
Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and
valuable secretary of the Company.

Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.

Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows:--Dr.
Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie,
Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee,
Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman,
Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol
College), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth),
Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.

Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health
and preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New
Testament, was unable to attend.  It should be here mentioned that soon
after the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of
Westminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Company
as their secretary.  A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigable
secretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for the
great and responsible work.

On the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out of the
revision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were all
duly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear and
open for the commencement of the work.  These rules (copies of which will
be found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto
issued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the
fundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have been
already specified.

The first of these subsidiary rules was as follows:--"To introduce as few
alterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version
consistently with faithfulness."  This rule must be read in connexion
with the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I have
already made on those rules.

The second of the rules of the committee was as follows:--"To limit, as
far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of
the Authorised and earlier English versions."  This rule was carefully
attended to in its reference to the Authorised Version.  I do not however
remember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that we
often fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions.  They
were always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there
were differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings of
the ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and
occasionally of the Gothic and Armenian.  To these, however, the rule
makes no allusion.

The third rule speaks for itself:--"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."

The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and is
an amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule.  The
rule of the committee is as follows:--"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."  The subject of the
text is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows:--"To make or
retain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company
except _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on the
first revision to decide by simple majorities."

The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I do
not know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was very
rarely acted upon:--"In every case of proposed alteration that may have
given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon 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."  The only occasion on which I can remember this
rule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one.  At
the close of a long day's work we found ourselves differing on the
renderings of "tomb" or "sepulchre" in one of the narratives of the
Resurrection.  This was easily and speedily settled the following
morning.

The seventh rule was as follows:--"To revise the headings of chapters and
pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation."  This rule was very
carefully attended to except as regards headings of chapters and pages.
These were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of
direct interpretation, that both Companies agreed to leave this portion
of the work to some committee of the two University Presses that they
might afterwards think fit to appoint.  Small as the work might seem to
be if only confined to the simple revision of the existing headings, the
time it would have taken up, if undertaken by the Companies, would
certainly have been considerable.  I revised, on my own account, the
headings of the chapters in St. Matthew, and was surprised to find how
much time was required to do accurately and consistently what might have
seemed a very easy and inconsiderable work.

The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarely
acted upon: "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."  How far this was acted on by the Old
Testament Company I do not know.  In regard of the New Testament Company
the only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule,
was in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventh
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.  In this particular case we sent our
sheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of us
knew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nautically
correct.  I believe this friendly and competent authority did not find
anything amiss.  It has sometimes been said that it would have been
better, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule had
been more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English and
alterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our more
distinguished literary men.  It may be so; though I much doubt whether in
matters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominant
arbiter.  In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much could
have been effected by appealing to the ears of others.  At any rate we
preferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards
mention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been
improved upon.

The concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: "That the
work of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in
order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language
as possible."

All preliminaries were now settled.  The invitations were issued, and,
with the exceptions of Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were
readily accepted.  Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor
Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added to those
already mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament Company, and, in
less than a month after the meeting of the committee on May 25, both
Companies had entered upon their responsible work.  On June 22, 1870,
both Companies, after a celebration of the Holy Communion, previously
announced by Dean Stanley as intended to be administered by him in
Westminster Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII,