Tfie Story of 
 
 ho Revised New Testament 
 
 American Standard Edil 
 
 Aiaxinew tsrown KKictie 
 
 BSI88 
 .R54 
 
txhvaxy of €he Cheolo^ical ^eminarjp 
 
 PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY 
 
 -^^^ 
 
 FROM THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 REVEREND CHARLES ROSENBURY ERDMAN 
 D.D., LL.D. 
 
Al 
 
THE STORY OF 
 THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 AMERICAN STANDARD EDITION 
 
(?H . /^ . ^^^^^^ 
 
•oiy 
 
 ^•^^<JjLAlSi.:^'\ 
 
 The Story of 
 The Revised New Testament 
 
 American Standard Edition 
 
 By \/ 
 
 Matthew Brown Riddle 
 
 One of the Revisers 
 
 The Sunday School Times Company 
 Philadelphia 
 
Copyright, 1908, 
 
 BY 
 
 The Sunday School Times Co. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 It was necessary in telling this story to 
 begin at the inception of the movement for 
 Revision. Hence this little book repeats 
 many facts that were published when, and 
 immediately after, the Revised New Testa- 
 ment of 1 88 1 appeared. But another gener- 
 ation has grown up since that date, and 
 much well known to Biblical scholars will 
 be new to most readers to-day. Yet, even in 
 telling of the labors before 1881, the writer, 
 from his connection with the American 
 Company of New Testament Revisers, has 
 been able to include many facts not known 
 to the general public. The account of the 
 preparation of the Standard Edition of the 
 American Revised New Testament has 
 never been published before, and the writer 
 has found, from many letters of inquiry, 
 that little is known about the details. The 
 same inquiries indicate a desire to learn the 
 facts as here briefly presented. Thirty-five 
 years have passed since the work began, and 
 this sketch has been penned in the desire and 
 hope of making these long years of labor 
 5 
 
Preface 
 
 more profitable to the readers of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Western Theological Seminary, 
 Allegheny, Pa. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 SECTION I 
 Preliminary 9 
 
 SECTION II 
 Members AND Method of Co-operation . 17 
 
 SECTION III 
 The Greek Text of the Revisers . . .27 
 
 SECTION IV 
 The Emended Renderings 35 
 
 SECTION V 
 The American Appendix 43 
 
 SECTION VI 
 The Interval, 1881-1897 51 
 
 SECTION VII 
 
 The Preparation of the American Revised 
 
 New Testament 59 
 
 7 
 
Contents 
 
 SECTION VIII 
 
 PAGK 
 
 The Reception of the American- Revised 
 
 Bible 67 
 
 SECTION IX 
 
 The Distinctive Features of the AiMerican 
 Revised New Testament . . . . 'jt, 
 
SECTION I 
 
 Preliminarv 
 
 On the sixth day of May, 1870, the Con- 
 vocation of Canterbury took final action on 
 a report favoring a revision of the Author- 
 ized Version of the Holy Scriptures. As 
 early as 1856 an attempt was made, in the 
 Convocation and also in Parliament, to have 
 a Royal commission appointed for the same 
 purpose ; hut the efifort failed. Various 
 causes contributed to bring the mat- 
 ter to a favorable issue in 1870. So far 
 as the Nev^ Testament was concerned, 
 the most influential factor was prob- 
 ably the discovery by Tischendorf, in 
 1859, of the whole Codex Sinaiticus, forty- 
 three leaves of which, containing parts of 
 the Old Testament, he had rescued from a 
 waste-basket in the library of the convent of 
 St. Catharine at Mt. Sinai, as early as 1844. 
 This Greek manuscript, containing both Old 
 and New Testaments, and ranking in age 
 with the oldest one known up to that time, 
 practically settled the general character of 
 9 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 the New Testament text in the judgment of 
 competent scholars. The \'atican manu- 
 script had long been known, but had also 
 been inaccessible. When the text it con- 
 tained became accurately known, and was 
 found to be in substantial agreement with 
 that of the Sinaitic manuscript, it was felt 
 that this older text must be more accurate 
 than the so-called Received Text, on which 
 the Authorized \'ersion is based. English 
 commentators virtually became individual 
 revisers : and indeed five Anglican clergs^- 
 men, including Dean Alford and Bishop 
 Ellicott, published as early as 1857 a revision 
 of the Gospel of John, which was followed 
 by other portions of the New Testament. 
 
 The Convocation of Canterburs^ was 
 unanimous in its action. The nucleus of the 
 Revision Companies was selected from its 
 own members, but with this most important 
 provision, namely, that the body appointed 
 by the Convocation from its own members 
 "shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation 
 of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever 
 nation or religious body they may belong." 
 This broad-minded action led to the invita- 
 tion of many Biblical scholars from the 
 United Kingdom, many of them not con- 
 
Preliminary 
 
 nected with the EstabHshed Church of Eng- 
 land. It also led to the organization of co- 
 operating Companies in America. 
 
 The English New Testament Company 
 began its labors on June 22., 1870; the num- 
 ber of working members being twenty-four, 
 for the greater portion of the time. Bishop 
 Ellicott was the active chairman, though 
 Bishop Wilberforce was originally ap- 
 pointed. The latter attended but one meet- 
 ing, and died during the progress of the 
 work. 
 
 The two houses of the Convocation of 
 Canterbury voted, July 7, 1870, ''to invite the 
 co-operation of some American divines," 
 Bishop Wilberforce and Dean Stanley being 
 entrusted with the duty of opening com- 
 munication with America to bring about the 
 desired co-operation. What followed is 
 thus stated bv Dr. Schafif* : "In August, 
 1870, Dr. Joseph Angus, President of Re- 
 gent's Park College, London, and one of the 
 British revisers, arrived in New York, with 
 a letter from Bishop Ellicott, chairman of 
 the New Testament Company, authorizing 
 
 •iNTRODUCrrOK ON THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH 
 
 Bible: prefixed to the republished Essays on the sub- 
 ject by Archbishop Trench, and Bishops Ellicott and 
 Lightfoot, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1872. 
 II 
 
TJie Revised New Testament 
 
 him to open negotiations for the formation 
 of an American Committee of Revision. At 
 his request, I prepared a draft of rules for 
 co-operation, andaHst of names of Biblical 
 scholars who would probably best represent 
 the different denominations and literary in- 
 stitutions in this movement. The sugges- 
 tions were submitted to the British Commit- 
 tee and substantially approved. Then fol- 
 lowed an interesting official correspondence, 
 conducted, on behalf of the British Commit- 
 tee, by the Bishop of Winchester, the Dean 
 of Westminster, the Bishop of Gloucester 
 and Bristol, and Dr. Angus. I was em- 
 powered by the British Committee to select 
 and invite scholars from non-Episcopal 
 Churches ; the nomination of members from 
 the American Episcopal Church was, for 
 obvious reasons, placed in the hands of some 
 of its Bishops ; but, as they declined to take 
 action, I was requested to fill out the list." 
 All the correspondence indicated in the 
 above statement has been published (1885) 
 by Dr. Schaff, in a Documentary History of 
 the Revision (New York: Charles Scrib- 
 ner's Sons). The House of Bishops of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States, by declining to formally approve the 
 12 
 
Preliminary 
 
 movement for revision, left it free from 
 every suspicion of ecclesiastical control. 
 Had the selection of the Committee been 
 placed in the hands of ecclesiastical bodies, 
 there never could have been any American 
 co-operation. 
 
 The prominence of Dr. Schaff in the for- 
 mation of the Committee was quite natural. 
 Known, both personally and by his writings, 
 to European scholars, a wonderful organ- 
 izer, and of great executive ability, familiar 
 with many denominations in America, and 
 free from sectarian bias in his personal at- 
 titude, he was well fitted for the difficult 
 and delicate task assigned to him by the rep- 
 resentatives of the British Committee. As 
 President of the American Committee his 
 official activity contributed greatly to the 
 ultimate successful result. Moreover, as 
 editor of Lange's Commentary, he had 
 proposed many emendations, and he and 
 his fellow-laborers in that work had an- 
 ticipated the larger proportion of the 
 changes finally accepted by the Revisers. 
 
 Dr. Schaff says : "In the delicate task of 
 
 selection, reference was had, first of all, to 
 
 ability, experience, and reputation in Biblical 
 
 learning and criticism; next, to denomina- 
 
 13 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 tional connection and standing, so as to have 
 a fair representation of the leading churches 
 and theological institutions ; and last, to local 
 convenience, in order to secure regular at- 
 tendance" (Introduction, etc.). The New 
 Testament Company, as finally constituted, 
 included representatives of eight denomina- 
 tions, and one other was represented in the 
 Old Testament Company. Several changes 
 were made before the work began. 
 
 The organization of the American Com- 
 mittee took place December 7, 1871, when 
 a constitution was adopted by those w^ho 
 had been invited to take part in the revision. 
 But there was still further delay, owing to 
 some practical difficulties that required ad- 
 justment between the two Committees. At 
 last, on October 4, 1872, the American Com- 
 panies began their labors. Numbers 40 and 
 42 Bible House, New York, were the reg- 
 ular places of meeting, and, as the rooms 
 were connected, conference between the 
 two bodies was readily maintained. The 
 British Committee, having already made 
 some progress in their work, had agreed 
 to send copies of such parts of their first 
 and provisional revision as had been 
 completed. Accordingly, at this first ses- 
 14 
 
P7'elimi7iary 
 
 sion of the American Committee these 
 copies were distributed. The New Tes- 
 tament Company received copies of the 
 Synoptical Gospels, all marked ''private 
 and confidential," with a written state- 
 ment from Bishop Ellicott upon each, desig- 
 nating the person for whom the copy was 
 intended, and the confidential use to be made 
 of it. Active work at once began and con- 
 tinued until 1881. Then,inaccordancewith 
 an agreement prescribed by the University 
 Presses, who held the English copyright as 
 a return for the payment of all the expenses 
 of the British Committee, an interval of 
 fourteen years (afterwards extended) oc- 
 curred before the preparation of the separate 
 American Revised Version. This was pub- 
 lished by Messrs. Thomas Nelson and Sons 
 in 1 901. There are therefore three periods 
 in the history: That of co-operation, 1872- 
 1881 ; that of stipulated delay, 1881-1895, or 
 rather, 1899, since the Old Testament was 
 not published until 1885 ; that of editing 
 the American Revised Version, closing in 
 1901. 
 
 15 
 
SECTION II 
 
 Members and Method of Co-operation 
 
 Nineteen names are included in the pub- 
 lished list of members of the New Testa- 
 ment Company of American Revisers. 
 But only fifteen ever engaged in the 
 work, and two of these for a very brief 
 period. Dr. Henry B. Smith attended but 
 one meeting, resigning from ill-health ; Drs. 
 Crooks and Warren resigned from inability 
 to attend ; Dr. Charles Hodge never attended 
 any meetings, and showed no approval of 
 the undertaking. Prof. Hadley attended but 
 one meeting, dying" in the following month. 
 The company at once chose Dr. Timothy 
 Dwight in his place. Dr. Hackett, after the 
 first year, found himself unable to attend, 
 and at his death (in 1875) no one was 
 chosen in his place. 
 
 The thirteen members who continued 
 their joint labors until 1881 were: 
 
 The Rev. Theolxire D. Woolsey, D. D., 
 LL. D. (Chairman), Ex-President of Yale 
 College, New Haven, Conn. Born in New 
 17 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 York, Oct. 31, 1801; died at New Haven, 
 July I, 1889. 
 
 The Rev. J. Henry Thayer, D. D., 
 (Secretary), formerly Professor of New- 
 Testament Exegesis in the Theological 
 Seminary at Andover, Mass., afterwards 
 in the same chair at Harvard Divinity 
 School. Born in Boston, Nov. 7, 1828; 
 died at Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 26, 1901. 
 
 Charles Short, LL. D., Professor of 
 Latin in Columbia College, New York. 
 Born May 28, 1821, in Haverhill, Mass.; 
 died Dec. 24, 1886, at New York. 
 
 Ezra Abbot, D. D., LL. D., Professor 
 of New Testament Exegesis in the Divinity 
 School of Harvard University, Cambridge, 
 Mass. Born April 28, 1819, in Jackson, 
 Maine; died at Cambridge, Mass., March 
 21, 1884. 
 
 The Rev. J. K. Burr, D. D., Trenton, 
 N. J. Born Sept. 21, 1825, in Middletown, 
 Conn. ; died at Trenton, N. J., April 24, 
 1882. 
 
 Thomas Chase, LL. D., President of 
 Haverford College, Pa. Born June 16, 
 1827, in Worcester, Mass.; died in 1892. 
 
 The Rev. Howard Crosby, D. D., LL. D., 
 Ex-Chancellor of the University of New 
 18 
 
Members and Method of Co-operation 
 
 York. Born Feb. 26, 1826, in New York; 
 died March 21, 1891. 
 
 The Rev. Timothy Dwight, D.D.,LL.D., 
 Professor of New Testament Exegesis in 
 the Divinity School of Yale College, Presi- 
 dent of Yale University, 1886-99. Born in 
 Norwich, Conn., Nov. 16, 1828. Resides 
 in New Haven. 
 
 The Rev. Asahel Clark Kendrick, 
 D. D., LL. D., Professor of Greek in the 
 University of Rochester, N. Y. Born Dec. 
 7, 1809, in Poultney, Vt. ; died Oct. 22, 1895. 
 
 The Right Rev. Alfred Lee, D. D., 
 LL. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Diocese of Delaware. Born Sept. 9, 1807, 
 in Cambridge, Mass.; died April 12, 1887, 
 at Wilmington, Del. 
 
 The Rev. Matthew Brown Riddle, 
 D. D., LL. D., Professor of New Testament 
 Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at 
 Hartford, Conn., since 1887 in the same 
 chair at the Western Theological Seminary, 
 Allegheny, Pa. Born Oct. 17, 1836, in Pitts- 
 burgh, Pa. Resides in Allegheny (now 
 Pittsburgh), Pa. 
 
 The Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. D., 
 Professor of Sacred Literature (and after- 
 wards of other Departments) in the Union 
 19 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 Theological Seminary, New York. Born 
 Jan. I, 1819, in Coire, Switzerland; died 
 Oct. 20, 1893, at New York. 
 
 The Rev. Edward Abiel Washburn, 
 D. D., LL. D., Rector of Calvary Church, 
 New York. Born April 16, 181 \ in Boston, 
 Mass.; died Feb. 2, 1881, at New York. 
 
 Three of these, the youngest in years, 
 became the editors of the American Stand- 
 ard Revised New Testament: Drs. Dwight, 
 Thayer and Riddle. Dr. Thayer lived to see 
 the published volume, but died a few 
 months afterward (Nov. 26, 1901). Of the 
 original members the present writer is the 
 sole survivor, though Dr. Dwight was 
 elected very soon after the first meeting. 
 
 The sessions were held on the last Friday 
 and Saturday of each month, from Septem- 
 ber to May. During the summer it was 
 usual to meet once for a longer session, at 
 New Haven or Andover. On Fridays from 
 eight to 'ten hours were spent in deliber- 
 ation ; on Saturday, the Company ad- 
 journed earlier, to enable the members to 
 reach their homes that evening.*- 
 
 *It became the habit of four of us to make the home 
 
 journey together. Dr. Woolsey left us at New Haven, 
 
 while Drs. Abbot and Thayer parted with the present 
 
 writer at Hartford. Few memories are more delightful 
 
 20 
 
Members and Method of Co-operation 
 
 When in session the position about the 
 table was as indicated: 
 
 
 OR. WOOLSEV 
 
 OR. SCHAFF 
 
 BISHOP LEE 
 
 
 PROF. SHORT 
 
 OR THAYER 
 
 
 OR. RIOOLE 
 
 OR ABBOT 
 
 
 PRES CHASE 
 
 OR. KENDRICK 
 
 
 OH. BURR 
 
 OR. OWIGHT 
 
 
 OR. WASHBURN 
 
 OR. CROSBY 
 
 Dr. Schaff, whose private desk was in the 
 room, usually sat there, but joined the group 
 at the table at frequent intervals. While no 
 vice-chairmaij was ever elected, Dr. Crosby 
 usually presided on the rare occasions when 
 Dr. Woolsey was absent. Professor Short 
 
 than those connected with these homeward trips. The 
 stress of labor was over, and, while some echoes of the 
 meetings appeared, there was a charming mingling of 
 wit and wisdom in the conversations. All who have 
 known my three companions will understand what a 
 privilege this familiar social intercourse must have been. 
 21 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 was secretary, but Dr. Thayer was his 
 assistant, and in his hands were the most 
 detailed records of the discussions and de- 
 cisions. 
 
 The two Companies in America, unlike 
 those in England, had an organization in 
 common; Dr. Schaff being President, and 
 Dr. George E. Day, Secretary. This proved 
 a great convenience in many ways. No 
 compensation has ever been received by any 
 of the members during the twenty-nine 
 years, from 1872 to 1901. The necessary 
 traveling and incidental expenses were met 
 by contributions from friends of the move- 
 ment, Mr. Andrew L. Taylor, of the Bible 
 Society, kindly acting as Treasurer. The 
 total amount required during the period of 
 co-operation was nearly $50,000.'*' 
 
 The method of co-operation, as finally 
 
 *At first contributions were solicited by members of 
 the Committee, but afterwards a more convenient way 
 was adopted. To contributors of $10 a presentation copy 
 of the Memorial Volume of the New Testament was 
 oflFered. The response was gratifying. The Memorial 
 Volume was in the very best style of printing and bind- 
 ing. They were delivered by the University Presses 
 free of charge, and by special Congressional enactment 
 were admitted free of duty. To each of the American 
 Revisers ten copies were allotted; these volumes being 
 the only compensation received. Similar offers were 
 made in regard to the Revised Old Testament. 
 22 
 
Members and Method of Co-operation 
 
 agreed upon, included : the sending of the 
 first and provisional revision from England 
 to America; then the consideration of this 
 by the American Company, the results being 
 returned to England ; then, after careful con- 
 sideration of the suggestions from America, 
 a second English revision, which was also 
 sent to this country, and the same course 
 pursued in regard to it. Practically a third 
 revision was made in England, in order to 
 secure more uniformity in the renderings. 
 Indeed Bishop Ellicott, in his final report to 
 the Convocation, intimates that there were 
 virtually seven revisions, including the 
 American reviews of the matter sent to this 
 country. Furthermore it was agreed that 
 an appendix should be published with the 
 English Revised Version, containing the 
 more important preferences of the American 
 Company. As the Authorized Version of 
 the New Testament was the work of two 
 separate companies, who never discussed 
 their results in common, the superiority 
 of a version resulting from this united 
 and corporate discussion is apparent. It 
 was further stipulated, by the University 
 Presses, who owned the English copy- 
 right, that the American Company should 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 not publish an edition of their own for a 
 term of fourteen years. 
 
 That the EngHsh Revisers gave, as they 
 state in their Preface, "much care and 
 attention" to the American suggestions is 
 shown by the number, either incorporated 
 in the text or added in the margin of the 
 Revision of 1881, probably one thousand 
 in all, as estimated by Bishop Lee.'-^ The 
 American Appendix, moreover, formed an 
 essential part of the results of this co- 
 operative labor. In regard to this Ap- 
 pendix further details will be given in a 
 subsequent section. 
 
 In the sessions of the American Company 
 the mode of procedure was usually this: 
 A passage was assigned in advance and each 
 member made his individual preparation 
 at home. At the sessions Dr. Woolsey 
 read the passage assigned verse by verse 
 from the English Revision, and was fol- 
 lowed by Bishop Lee, who read the 
 corresponding verse from the Authorized 
 \'ersion. Remarks were made by the 
 m.embers, whether in approval or in 
 disapproval of the proposed changes. 
 
 •See SchafT's Companion to the Greek Testament, pp. 
 579-606. 
 
 24 
 
Members and Method of Co-operation 
 
 In many cases little discussion ensued, 
 since the necessity for the emenda- 
 tion was obvious. But frequently a single 
 verse would call for prolonged debate, es- 
 pecially when the change proposed involved 
 a large class of passages. A few of the very 
 important changes called for printed state- 
 ments, which were transmitted to England. 
 One of the most important changes urged 
 by the American Company, and finally ac- 
 cepted by the English Company, was the 
 substitution of *'Hades" for ''hell" in pas- 
 sages where the equivalent Greek term oc- 
 curs. Where *'Gehenna" occurs ''hell" was 
 retained, with the margin "Or. Gehoma!' 
 The intent was to distinguish between two 
 terms, which are not synonymous. For 
 while ''Hades" may include a place of pun- 
 ishment, it usually means the place or state 
 of the dead. "Gehenna" is the place of pun- 
 ishment. Unfortunately this distinction has 
 not been understood, and the substitution of 
 "Hades" has been regarded as an attempt to 
 get rid of the idea of future punishment. 
 
 25 
 
SECTION III 
 
 The Greek Text of the Revisers 
 
 The chief peculiarity of the Revised New 
 Testament is that it represents a much older, 
 and, in the judgment of all competent schol- 
 ars, a mor e accurat e^G reek text. Naturally 
 this makes it greatly superior to the Author- 
 ized Version. The latter was based upon 
 the Greek Testament of Beza, from which it 
 differs in only forty places. Now Beza, 
 while a careful exegete, was not an 
 expert textual critic. In his day the 
 science of textual criticism had not 
 yet been developed. The editors pre- 
 ceding him, Erasmus and Robert 
 Stephen (or, Stephens, as generally 
 printed), had few Greek manuscripts, and 
 no settled critical principles. It is usual to 
 speak of the text of the sixteenth century, 
 on which the Authorized Version is based, 
 as the "Received Text." But this is not 
 strictly correct. The edition which claims to 
 present the Received Text was printed by 
 the Elzevirs, at Lcyden, in 1633, twenty-two 
 27 
 
The Revised Ntw Testament 
 
 years after the publication of the Author- 
 ized Version. But it differs very sHghtly 
 from Stephen and Beza. In the discussions 
 between the Roman CathoHcs and Protes- 
 tants during the sixteenth century, neither 
 party took the right view of the Greek text. 
 The Roman CathoHcs accepted the Latin 
 Vulgate as authoritative, while the Protes- 
 tants contended for the authority of the 
 original Greek (and Hebrew). But 
 the text which the Protestants used 
 ^was in many cases, it is now acknowl- 
 edged, less accurate than that repre- 
 sented by the Vulgate. The true posi- 
 tion is : that the original Greek text 
 is authoritative ; not any translation, or any 
 later and possibly impure and inaccurate 
 text. To discover this original Greek text 
 has been the task of textual critics, since 
 the latter part of the eighteenth century. 
 The labors of Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf and Tregelles convinced New 
 ; Testament scholars that the ori^^gLtext 
 ■ had been substantially recovered. While in 
 minor details there was room for discus- 
 sion, the position of both the English 
 and American New Testament Companies 
 was decidedly in favor of accepting the 
 28 
 
The Greek Text of the Revisers 
 
 text resulting from the labors of these 
 critics, in preference to the uncrit ical 
 text on wh ich tlie Authorized Version 
 was based . ' ilurneither Company at- ! 
 terripted to construct a continuous and ' 
 complete Greek text," as is stated in the 
 Preface to the Revised New Testament of 
 1 88 1. So that no edition of the Greek Tes- 
 tament can claim to present *'the Revisers' J 
 text," since on many passages where there 
 are various readings, different spellings and 
 punctuation, the Revisers passed no judg- 
 ment. Only upon readings that would affect 
 the English dress was any action taken. 
 
 For convenience in England Scrivener's 
 Greek Testament was used to mark the 
 changes in text. This edition has in foot- 
 notes the various readings accepted by the 
 principal critical editors, the text itself being 
 that of Stephen. As these notes are num- 
 bered, in transmitting the first Revision to 
 America a list of the numbers prefixed to 
 the preferred readings was added. Thus 
 the judgment of the English Revisers was 
 accurately indicated. 
 
 It has often been asked : What edition was 
 accepted by the Revisers ? 
 
 The only answer is, the readings of no one 
 29 
 
The Revised New Testa^nent 
 
 edition were accepted, but each various read- 
 ing was discussed, first in England and then 
 in America. In England Dr. Scrivener was 
 the main advocate on one side, and Drs. 
 Westcott and Hort on the other. The Greek 
 Testament of the latter had not been pub- 
 lished when the work of revision began, but 
 copies of the Gospels were printed and 
 placed in the hands of the English Company. 
 A copy sent to America was entrusted to 
 the present writer, who collated the read- 
 ings and added notices of them to the foot- 
 notes in Scrivener's edition. It was evident 
 I that the readings accepted by the English 
 ? Revisers were quite as frequently those of 
 . Tregelles a:3 those of Westcott and Hort. 
 In the American Company the readings 
 'were carefully discussed. While in the vast 
 majority of cases the preferences of the 
 English Revisers were approved, this^was 
 due to independent judgment. Dr. Ezra 
 Abbot was tKe'^loremost textual critic in 
 America, and his opinions usually prevailed 
 when questions of text were debated. It 
 may be said that neither he nor any other 
 ] member of the Company endorsed the pe- 
 ^ culiar theory of Westcott and Hort, in re- 
 gard to what they call the "Neutral" text, 
 I 30 
 
TJie Greek Text of tJie Revisers 
 
 a theory which gives to the Codex Vatica- * 
 nus (designated B) preponderating author- j 
 ity. So also the obvious partiahty of \ 
 Tischendorf for the readings of the Codex i 
 Sinaiticus (designated Aleph), which he , 
 had discovered, was carefully guarded j 
 against. 
 
 Another question has frequently been 
 asked: What manuscript or manuscripts 
 did the Revisers follow ? The answer again 
 is : No one manuscript. In each case all the 
 leading authorities were recognized, and the 
 judgment based upon evidence, both ex- 
 ternal and internal. From the results it 
 would appear that the American Company 
 gave more weight to internal evidence, and 
 the English Company to the external evi- 
 dence. Nearly all the differences between 
 thetwoCompanies.asregards readings, are 
 indicated in the American Appendix pub- 
 lished in the Revised New Testament of 
 1881. In many instances the English Com- 
 pany preferred one reading in the text and 
 another in the margin, while the American 
 Company reversed this position. The mar- 
 ginal notes which refer to alternate read- 
 ings, that is, to other forms of the Greek 
 text, are carefully worded, and give an 
 31 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 estimate of evidence supporting the reading. 
 Usually the formula is: "Some ancient au- 
 thorities read," etc. Where the reading is 
 more strongly attested, ''Many ancient 
 authorities" occurs. In a few special cases 
 the evidence is otherwise indicated: e. g., 
 **Many very ancient authorities," ''Very 
 many ancient authorities," "Many authori- 
 ties, some ancient." Mark i6: 9-20, and 
 John 7:53-8:11 required special notes. 
 
 As the text of the w^hole New Testa- 
 ment was discussed during the period 
 of co-operation, when Dr. Abbot's ex- 
 pert knowledge was available, it was 
 not found necessary in the subsequent 
 preparation of the Standard Revised 
 New^ Testament to modify the judgments 
 rendered by the whole Company. The Ap- 
 pendix of 1 88 1 includes nearly all the read- 
 ings in regard to which the American Re- 
 visers differed from the English. Probably 
 the Greek Testament that most frequently 
 adopts the readings of the Revisers, either 
 those of the text or of the margins, is that 
 of Nestle, the first edition of which was 
 published in 1901. It presents a compro- 
 mise text, but the readings approved by 
 the Revisers always appear, either in its 
 32 
 
The Greek Text of the Revisers 
 
 text or its margins. A student of the 
 Greek Testament can easily determine, 
 from a comparison of the Revised New 
 Testament with this edition, what was the 
 judgment of the Revisers in each case 
 where various readings occur. 
 
 33 
 
SECTION IV 
 The Emended Renderings 
 
 The changes of the Greek text accepted 
 by the Revisers called for corresponding 
 changes in the English dress. But the vast 
 majority of the emendations were more cor- 
 rect "renderings," that is, translations of 
 Greek words and phrases, which were un- 
 affected by textual criticism. While both 
 Companies took the same general attitude 
 in regard to inaccuracies of the Author- 
 ized Version, there was room for differ- 
 ence of judgment in many individual 
 cases. 
 
 The main reason for revision was not a 
 literary one. Despite a few archaisms the 
 noble diction of the Authorized Version has 
 been preserved in the Revised Version. 
 New words have not been introduced, ex- 
 cept when accuracy demanded a term un- 
 employed in the older versions. But while 
 the literary form was constantly considered, 
 the main purpose was to present accurately, 
 so far as any version can, the meaning of 
 35 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 the New Testament writers. Many volumes 
 have been written on the inaccuracies of the 
 Authorized Version. Every scholarly com- 
 mentator has indicated its failure to express 
 the exact sense of the original. The Greek 
 language was by no means so well known 
 in the days of King James as it is to-day. 
 The influence of Latin, the common 
 tongue of scholars in that age, modified 
 many of the renderings, especially those 
 of the Greek tenses, which do not 
 correspond exactly with those of either 
 Latin or English. As there is no article 
 in Latin, the very important use of 
 the Greek definite article was often 
 ignored. Prepositions were rendered in- 
 consistently, if not carelessly. Moreover, 
 the Authorized Version habitually renders 
 the same Greek term by different English 
 words, and, on the other hand, renders dif- 
 ferent Greek terms by the same English 
 word. This made it impossible for the Eng- 
 lish reader to determine the correspondences 
 in the Greek. English Concordances were 
 therefore often misleading, and Harmonies 
 of the Gospels utterly inadequate. To se- 
 cure, as far as possible, uniformity in ren- 
 dering became a leading aim of the Revisers 
 36 
 
The Emended Renderirigs 
 
 in both England and America. As an aid to 
 this, the present writer prepared in an inter- 
 leaved Greek Concordance a list of all the 
 changes made in the first English revision. 
 This was in constant use in the sessions of 
 the American Company, and was of value 
 during the preparation of the American Re- 
 vised Version. A similar use of a Greek 
 Concordance was made by members of the 
 English Company before the publication of 
 the Revised New Testament of 1881. 
 
 But despite the general agreement in re- 
 gard to the principles that should govern the 
 revision, at every point there was room for 
 discussion. There would be differing views 
 as to the exact sense of a given passage; 
 then, different opinions asto the best mode 
 of expressing the sense. The question often 
 arose whether* a rendering should stand in 
 the text or be relegated to the margin. In 
 all these discussions there was manifested 
 the utmost candor. The denominations of 
 Christians represented in the American 
 Company were the Baptist, Congregational- 
 ist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist 
 Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episco- 
 pal, and Unitarian ; yet rarely was there what 
 might be termed a "theological" debate. 
 37 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 As an illustration of the candor of 
 the Company, the treatment of the 
 passages referring to baptism may be 
 cited. Since the American Revised 
 Version was published much criticism 
 has been offered on this point. The 
 English Company, in Matthew 3:11 
 and similar passages, rendered "with water," 
 placing in the margin *'Or, m," wherever the 
 Greek preposition en occurs. The American 
 Company reached this verse in the closing 
 session of 1872. As a class of passages was 
 involved, the discussion was frank and full. 
 It was decided, by a vote of 7 to 3, that the 
 text and margin should exchange places, 
 that "in" should be the rendering in the text, 
 and "Or, zviih'' be placed in the margin. 
 That decision was never reversed. It ap- 
 pears in the American Appendix of 1881, 
 and, of course, in the Standard American 
 Version of 1901. Yet it was asserted by 
 some that this action was that of the three 
 editors of the Standard New Testament, 
 also that they were all ecclesiastically 
 Baptists. It is evident that this decision 
 was made at an early, and comparatively 
 full, session of the Company, and that the 
 editors of the American Version simply 
 38 
 
The Emended Renderings 
 
 recorded the action of the whole Com- 
 pany — action taken, moreover, nearly 
 twenty-nine years before. 
 
 In 1872, when the vote stood 7 to 3, there 
 were two Baptist members present and 
 voting with the majority. The question 
 was settled by the vote of representatives 
 of other denominations. It was felt that 
 the English reader ought to know where 
 the Greek preposition, usually meaning 
 *'in," occurred in connection with baptism. 
 Whether immersion was practised by John 
 the Baptist, or whether it is the proper 
 mode, was not discussed to any great ex- 
 tent. The question simply was, how shall 
 we most fairly present to the English reader 
 the exact force- of the original ? 
 
 Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able 
 paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, ar- 
 guing that it was a doxology to God, and 
 not to be referred to Christ. His view of the 
 punctuation, which is held by many modern 
 scholars, appears in the margin of the 
 American Appendix, and is more defensible 
 than the margin of the English Company. 
 In many other cases Dr. Abbot was more 
 conservative than the English Company. 
 
 The main differences in the American 
 39 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 Company were due to the training of the 
 members. The New Testament books were 
 written in Hellenistic Greek, that is, the 
 language of Greek-speaking Jews. It 
 differs somewhat from classical Greek, 
 owing to well-known historical causes. The 
 professors of New Testament Exegesis, in 
 the Company, naturally placed greater em- 
 phasis on these departures from classical 
 usage than did those of our number who had 
 been teachers of classical Greek. Some of 
 the longest and most earnest discussions 
 were about such rnatters, e. g., whether the 
 absence of the Greek article from the word 
 meaning "law" forbade a strict reference to 
 the Mosaic law. In at least twenty instances 
 the American Revisers render "the law," 
 where the English Company omits the Eng- 
 lish article. For it soon appeared that the 
 English Revisers, doubtless from their 
 classical training, failed to recognize some 
 of the Hellenistic peculiarities which our 
 professors of Exegesis insisted upon. 
 
 In every case abundant opportunity was 
 given for the presentation of new sugges- 
 tions. It may safely be affirmed that fev^, 
 if any, of the criticisms made since the Re- 
 vision of 1 88 1 were not anticipated in the 
 40 
 
The Emended Renderings 
 
 meetings of the American Company. Com- 
 petent scholars since that time have rarely 
 made suggestions which were not in some 
 form or other discussed by the Revisers 
 themselves in reaching their decisions. A 
 curious proof of the general agreement of 
 the two Companies in their judgments may 
 be stated. At one time, owing to some 
 difference of opinion about the relations of 
 the two Companies asaffectingthebusiness 
 interests of the University Presses, the first 
 English revision of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews was withheld from the American 
 Company. But it was decided to proceed 
 independently. When, afterwards, the work 
 of the English Company on that Epistle was 
 transmitted, it appeared that the American 
 Company had, without knowledge of the 
 English revision, adopted far more than half 
 of the emendations, in exact terms, and a 
 large proportion of the other half were sub- 
 stantiallv the same. 
 
 41 
 
SECTION V 
 
 The American Appendix 
 
 It had been agreed in 1878 that the differ- 
 ences of readings and renderings which the 
 American Company deemed of special im- 
 portance should be included in an Appendix 
 to the English Revision. While during the 
 successive reviews of the New Testament a 
 very large proportion of the xA.merican sug- 
 gestions had been accepted by the English 
 Company, either in exact terms or in sub- 
 stance, there still remained many points of 
 difference, both as to certain classes of pas- 
 sages, and as to individual instances. The 
 question then arose in the American Com- 
 pany : What shall be the extent of the Ap- 
 pendix ? Here there was difference of opin- 
 ion. The views of the individual members 
 have been preserved in a memorandum by 
 Dr. Schaff, and published by his son in the 
 *'Life of Philip Schaff," pp. 381, 382. The 
 majority favored reducing the Appendix, so 
 as to further the success of the volume. But 
 some felt that the Appendix should include 
 43 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 nearly all the changes preferred by the 
 American Company. Dr. Schaff himself 
 suggested "a small Appendix for the author- 
 ized edition of the Revision, and a separate 
 publication of all our changes, which shall 
 perpetuate the results of our ten years' 
 labor for the use of scholars." The de- 
 cision to reduce the Appendix involved a 
 nev^ review of the entire New Testament, 
 to determine what readings and renderings 
 were "of special importance." As the action 
 in regard to the Appendix was taken July 7, 
 1880, and the English Company was nearly 
 ready to publish the Revised New Testa- 
 ment, the preparation of the Appendix was 
 rapidly pushed. A committee prepared a 
 list, which was printed for the use of the Re- 
 visers, comprising a ''Basis for the Appen- 
 dix." Yet despite the great care given to 
 the task, the Preface to the American 
 Standard Revised New Testament 
 frankly states that the Appendix to the 
 edition of 1881 was ''hastily compiled 
 under pressure from the University 
 Presses." Still it contains very few 
 errors. It will be seen from the dis- 
 cussion above referred to that there was 
 already present in the minds of the Ameri- 
 44 
 
The America7i Appendix 
 
 can Revisers the desire to publish ultimately, 
 when the agreement with the University 
 Presses permitted, an American Revision, 
 which should contain many of the deviations 
 that were excluded from the Appendix by 
 its necessarily limited compass. In May, 
 1 88 1, the Revised New Testament was 
 placed on sale, in both England and 
 America, and within a year probably three 
 million copies were sold. Some American 
 reprints appeared, but for these the Ameri- 
 can Company had no responsibility, the 
 authorized English editions containing a 
 voucher from Drs. Schaff and Day, the 
 officers of the American Committee. 
 
 The Appendix consists of two parts: 
 The first, entitled "Classes of Passages," 
 applies to changes affecting a large number 
 of cases ; the second contains a list of spe- 
 cific changes, either of readings or render- 
 ings, and is arranged seriatim, with refer- 
 ence to books, chapters and verses. Occa- 
 sionally two or three similar passages are 
 added to the first instance. These specific 
 changes are about three hundred in number, 
 having been selected as "of special impor- 
 tance." Under "Classes of Passages," thir- 
 teen in all, the changes indicated are much 
 45 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 more numerous. The titles of the several 
 books are modified. The use of ''which," 
 where persons are referred to, is disap- 
 proved; "who" or "that" to be substituted. 
 This affects several hundred places, and it 
 was found, during the preparation of the 
 American Revised Version, that it was often 
 difficult to determine whether "who" or 
 "that" should be preferred in a particular 
 passage. The Appendix substituted "shil- 
 ling" for "penny," and "demon" for "devil," 
 wheie demoniacal possession is referred to. 
 All the changes included in "Classes of 
 Passages" have, of' course, been adopted in 
 the American Revised Version. 
 
 Of the specific changes, many have been 
 approved by the best English scholars. 
 Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the English 
 New Testament Company, published a few 
 years ago a commentary on First Corin- 
 thians, and in his notes he accepts more 
 than half of the suggestions of the Ameri- 
 can Appendix, usually word for word. But 
 the good Bishop does not allude to the fact 
 that his American co-laborers agree with 
 him. It may be noted that the American 
 Appendix, as a whole, presents fewer 
 archaic terms and forms than the English 
 46 
 
The American Appendix 
 
 Revision. This tendency was still more 
 prominent in the suggestions which were 
 not included in the Appendix. 
 
 As the preferences of the American Com- 
 pany published in the Revision of 1881 have 
 been incorporated in the American Stand- 
 ard edition of 1901, the details in regard to 
 the Appendix can be learned only from the 
 English editions of the University Presses. 
 
 One fact must be recorded here, because 
 of its bearing upon the American Revised 
 Version. In the Preface to the edition of 
 1 90 1 it is stated : 'The list of passages in 
 which the New Testament Company dis- 
 sented from the decision^ of their English 
 associates, when it was transmitted to them, 
 bore the heading, 'The American New Tes- 
 tament Revision Company, having in many 
 cases yielded their preference for certain 
 readings and renderings, present the follow- 
 ing instances in which they differ from the 
 English Company, as in their view of 
 sufficient importance to be appended to 
 the revision, in accordance with an under- 
 standing between the Companies.' " It 
 was therefore somewhat of a surprise to 
 find, when the edition of 1881 reached this 
 country, that the heading of the Ameri- 
 47 
 
TJie Revised New Testament 
 
 can Appendix was in this brief form : 
 "List of readings and renderings pre- 
 ferred by the American Committee, re- 
 corded at their desire." 
 
 This substitution was made without any 
 consultation with the American Company. 
 It may have been occasioned by a desire for 
 brevity ; but, whatever the reason may have 
 been, the pubHshed heading gave an errone- 
 ous impression, suggesting that the only 
 points of difference between the two com- 
 panies were those included in the Appendix. 
 While there was no evidence of any intent 
 to thus minimize the labors of the Ameri- 
 can Company, the effect was to strengthen 
 the desire to publish a distinctively Ameri- 
 can Revised Bible, at the expiration of four- 
 teen years, when such action would be per- 
 missible in accordance with the agreement 
 made with the English Company and the 
 University Presses. 
 
 There was no way of correcting the pub- 
 lished heading, for millions of copies had 
 been printed in England, and the English 
 Company had dissolved, leaving the Uni- 
 versity Presses as the only authority to 
 which appeal could be made. The American 
 Company retained its corporate existence, 
 48 
 
The American Appendix 
 
 and wisely decided to make no protest, fear- 
 ing the effect upon the success of the Re- 
 vision. With this incident the co-operation 
 with the EngHsh Company closed. The re- 
 lations with that body had been cordial, and 
 there is every reason to believe that the Eng- 
 lish scholars appreciated the labors of their 
 brethren in America. 
 
 49 
 
SECTION VI 
 
 The Interval, 1881-1897 
 
 The agreement with the University 
 Presses and the Enghsh Companies con- 
 tained the stipulation that the American 
 Committee "will do what lies in their power 
 to promote the freest circulation of the 
 editions of the University Presses in 
 the United States, not only by abstain- 
 ing from issuing any edition of their 
 own, but by recognizing the editions 
 of the University Presses as the authorized 
 editions, and in all proper ways favoring 
 such issues and discouraging irresponsi- 
 ble issues, for the period of fourteen 
 years." This stipulation was faithfully ad- 
 hered to. Announcement was made, prior 
 to the publication in 1881, that the American 
 Committee recognized only the editions pub- 
 lished or approved by the University Presses 
 as the authorized editions. A statement to 
 this effect, signed by the oflBcers of the 
 committee, was printed in the edition of 
 1881. Of course unauthorized editions ap- 
 51 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 peared in the United States, but the com- 
 mercial interests of the University Presses 
 were upheld, as far as possible, by the 
 American Revisers. 
 
 Yet the agreement implied the future pub- 
 lication of an American Revision. Strictly 
 interpreted, it v^ould have permitted the 
 American Company to publish the New 
 Testament in 1895. But as the Revised Old 
 Testament did not appear until 1885, it was 
 felt that it would be more honorable to wait 
 until fourteen years after that date. 
 
 As the agreement with Messrs. Thomas 
 Nelson and Sons, the publishers of the 
 American Standard Revised Version, was 
 made June 24, 1897, that date may be re- 
 garded as beginning the final preparation of 
 the American Revised Version. 
 
 But the American Revisers were not idle 
 during the interval, since they not only kept 
 up their organization, but held annual meet- 
 ings imtil 1 89 1. 
 
 At one of these meetings (1885) action 
 was taken in regard to the future publica- 
 tion, though definite plans were not yet 
 deemed advisable. Subsequently Drs. 
 Thayer and Riddle were appointed a com- 
 mittee to consider the details in regard to the 
 52 
 
The Interval, i88i-i8gj 
 
 publication of the New Testament, and they 
 met for conference several times at Castine, 
 Maine. Some preliminary work was done 
 during the following years. For example: 
 Dr. Thayer prepared a list of all the cases 
 where **which" was applied to persons in 
 the Revised Version of 1881. These were 
 classified as follows : passages where "who" 
 is obviously preferable; those where *'that" 
 seems more appropriate ; doubtful cases. 
 The list was printed and sent to the surviv- 
 ing members of the Company, who met at 
 the house of Dr. SchafT in New York, to dis- 
 cuss the instances thus presented. As these 
 were several hundred in number, and a de- 
 cision in many cases was delicate and dif- 
 ficult, no small labor was involved. The 
 American Appendix of 1881 proposed in 
 general to substitute 'Svho" or ''that" for 
 ''which" when applied to persons ; hence 
 only the American Revisers were competent 
 to decide in what instances one or the other 
 should be substituted. Some unauthorized 
 publications in America had attempted to 
 substitute the preferences of the Appendix 
 in the text, but the results were misleading 
 and sometimes erroneous. 
 
 During these years the Revisers naturally 
 53 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 paid some attention to the flood of criticism 
 which the Revised Version encountered. 
 While most of the unfavorable judgments 
 expressed were due to ignorance or preju- 
 dice, there were many intelligent criticisms 
 deserving, and receiving, due consider- 
 ation. The attitude of the public toward 
 the Revision of 1881 had some lessons for 
 those who were to prepare the American 
 Revised Version. 
 
 The method of publication caused some 
 perplexity. The expenses of the American 
 Companies during the period of co-oper- 
 ation had been met by private subscription, 
 and the additional outlay in the preparation 
 of the American Revised Version might 
 have been provided in the same way. 
 
 But this plan would have left the edition 
 unprotected by copyright, and would 
 have opened the way for unauthorized 
 and incorrect issues, as in 1881. Still 
 the Committee would have preferred this 
 method, could the necessary funds have 
 been provided. At the same time it was 
 evident that few publishing houses would 
 undertake the publication unless protected 
 by copyright. As the years passed, death re- 
 moved many of the New Testament Com- 
 54 
 
The Interval, iSSi-iSgj 
 
 pany; most of the survivors were burdened 
 with years or with exacting duties. It 
 seemed increasingly difficult for them to 
 undertake the responsibility of publishing as 
 well as preparing the proposed American 
 Revised Version. 
 
 As Dr. Schaff had been so successful in 
 soliciting funds for the expenses prior to 
 1881, both companies instinctively looked 
 to him for leadership in the new enterprise. 
 
 He maintained his interest to the last, at- 
 tending a meeting of the New Testament 
 Company, at New Haven, in June, 1893, 
 only four months before his lamented death, 
 October 20 of that year. He made some 
 suggestions at this meeting which were fol- 
 lowed in the preparation of the new edition. 
 
 But the loss of this leader was a great 
 discouragement to the few surviving mem- 
 bers of the committee. Professor Thayer, 
 the secretary of the New Testament Com- 
 pany, under date of August 19, 1895, wrote 
 to Dr. David S. Schafif (Life of Philip 
 Schaflf, p. 387) : "With your father's death 
 the prospect of success in the solicitation of 
 funds disappeared, and our diminishing 
 numbers and taxed leisure have held the 
 whole project in suspense to this hour." 
 55 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 There was, however, no thought of abandon- 
 ing the project. At the date of Professor 
 Thayer's letter only three members of the 
 New Testament Company survived: Drs. 
 Dwight, Thayer and Riddle, and these three 
 edited the American Standard edition of 
 the New Testament. It was felt by all of 
 them that it would be necessary to secure 
 a responsible publishing firm that would 
 provide the necessary expenses of prepa- 
 ration, and in return be granted the copy- 
 right. 
 
 Finally (and fortunately it has proved) 
 Messrs. Thomas Nelson and Sons entered 
 into negotiations with the Committee. In 
 April, 1897, a meeting was held at the Bible 
 House, New York, to confer with the New 
 York representative of this publishing firm. 
 Several details were fully discussed. It was 
 decided, at the desire of the Messrs. Nelson, 
 that a new and complete set of references be 
 prepared. The size of the volume, the ar- 
 rangement of marginal readings and render- 
 ings, and of Old Testament citations, were 
 virtually agreed upon. At this conference 
 the publishers expressed their willingness, 
 not only to defray the necessary expenses of 
 the Revisers, incident to the preparation of 
 56 
 
The Interval, iSSi-iSgy 
 
 the volume, but also to make some pecuniary 
 compensation to the surviving members. 
 When this proposal was made, Professor 
 Thayer, whose duties in preparing the Re- 
 vised New Testament were likely to be most 
 onerous, at once replied: "If I took money 
 for this work, I would be ashamed to meet 
 President Woolsey in Heaven !" 
 
 The arduous labors that followed, prob- 
 ably the most exacting in the entire history 
 of the Revision, were performed gratui- 
 tously. 
 
 57 
 
SECTION VII 
 
 The Preparation of the 
 American Revised New Testament 
 
 On the 24th of June, 1897, the formal 
 agreement with Messrs. Thomas Nelson 
 and Sons was consummated in New 
 York, and a contract made between 
 the publishers and the surviving mem- 
 bers of the two Companies. The 
 latter agreed to prepare the revised English 
 text, to supply headings and references, to 
 read the proofs. The publishers agreed to 
 bear the necessary incidental expenses, and, 
 in view of the gratuitous services of the re- 
 visers, they promised to issue some editions 
 of the book at a price that would put it 
 within the reach of the mass of readers. 
 The first edition was to be in small quarto 
 form, with the marginal readings and ren- 
 derings on a wide outer margin. Verse 
 numbers were to be inserted in the text. 
 The references were to be placed in a central 
 column. An Appendix was to be prepared, 
 in which should be included all the points of 
 59 
 
The Revised New Testa^nent 
 
 difference between the Revision of 1881-5 
 and the American Standard edition.* The 
 copyright was accorded to the publishers, 
 and a note, signed by the secretaries of 
 the Old and New Testament Companies, 
 was to be printed in every copy, certifying 
 that the editions published by Messrs. 
 Thomas Nelson and Sons ''are the only 
 editions authorized by the American Com- 
 mittee of Revision." 
 
 That very day the surviving members of 
 the New Testament Company began the 
 work of preparation. The first step was to 
 go over the entire New Testament, as re- 
 vised in 1 88 1, noting all the suggestions 
 made in the American Company during the 
 years 1872-81. As Professor Thayer had 
 full records of the earlier meetings, often in- 
 cluding the suggestions of individual mem- 
 bers, even when not adopted by the Com- 
 pany, it was possible to make a review 
 of all the work previously done ; and to 
 base the new Version upon the judg- 
 ment of the entire Company as thus 
 recorded. The three survivors really 
 
 *This Appendix appears only in the quarto edition, 
 the first one published, which contains also the English 
 Prefaces of 1881-5. But the later American editions omit 
 both the Appendix and the English Prefaces. 
 60 
 
The Preparation 
 
 represented their co-laborers, and the results 
 are in no sense merely the opinions of the 
 trio that remained alive in 1897. The many 
 emendations, forwarded at different times to 
 the English Company, but not accepted by 
 them or included in the Appendix of 1881, 
 were all reconsidered. Not only so, but 
 numerous questions of punctuation, of para- 
 graphing, and of spelling, were discussed. 
 It was, of course, necessary that the three 
 editors should meet several times. As all 
 were actively engaged in teaching, these 
 meetings usually occurred in summer or 
 during the Christmas recess, ordinarily con- 
 tinuing for a week. As the three had 
 been associated so long,_ it was possible 
 to accomplish a good deal by corre- 
 spondence, especially as the views of 
 each on important points were already 
 known to the others. In the spring of 
 1898 this review of the New Testa- 
 ment was completed, and the judg- 
 ment of the editors put on record. Pro- 
 fessor Thayer, according to the usages of 
 the Harvard Divinity School, had a Sabbati- 
 cal year during 1898 and 1899. He pro- 
 posed to visit his son-in-law, Professor Cas- 
 par Rene Gregory (the) editor of Tischen- 
 61 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 dorf's Prolegomena), at Leipsic, Germany, 
 and while there to select the references and 
 headings for the new edition. This exacting 
 work he faithfully and successfully prose- 
 cuted. The references in the ordinary 
 editions of the Authorized Version are, in 
 many cases, worthless or misleading. The 
 new references were to be more helpful in 
 regard to the use of words, and, by discrimi- 
 nating terms, such as "See," and "Com- 
 pare," to indicate the bearing of the passages 
 cited upon the place to which the reference 
 was prefixed. Parallel passages were to be 
 distinguished by italics. All this called for 
 minute care as well as wide Scriptural 
 knowledge. The mechanical execution of 
 the plan called for much skill. Professor 
 Thayer sent the "copy," with pasted slips 
 containing the references, to his colleagues 
 by instalments. The other editors exam- 
 ined and verified the lists, occasionally 
 discussing the propriety of using a given 
 passage. All this labor was not without its 
 influence upon the final judgment of the 
 editors. 
 
 In the midst of this arduous work some- 
 thing occurred which greatly surprised the 
 American Revisers, and led to a controversy 
 62 
 
The Preparation 
 
 in print, mainly in the columns of The Sun- 
 day School Times.* It is necessary to 
 allude to this, without reopening the contro- 
 versy. The University Presses, at the close 
 of the year 1898, just before the expiration 
 of the fourteen years agreed upon, published 
 an edition of the Revised Version, in which 
 the preferences printed in the Appendix of 
 1 88 1 -5 were incorporated in the text and 
 another Appendix substituted, which gave 
 the corresponding readings and renderings 
 of the English Companies. The edition con- 
 tained an admirable selection of references, 
 and was fairly accurate in its use of the 
 American preferences. But the American 
 Revisers had received no hint of the pur- 
 pose to publish such an edition, though some 
 years had evidently been required to 
 prepare it for publication. There can 
 be no question that the University 
 Presses had the legal right to issue 
 such a volume. It is altogether probable 
 that it was designed, in some way, to 
 protect the English copyright, of which 
 they were the owners. But the appearance 
 
 •Letter from Prof. Mead. March ii. 1899; letter from 
 Prof. Thayer, March 18, 1899: letter from Mr. Frowde, 
 and others, with editorial comments, April 15, 1899. 
 
 63 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 of the book at that time created the impres- 
 sion that this was the American Revised 
 Version which the pubHc had been awaiting 
 for so many years. This impression was 
 furthered by the fact that some booksellers 
 advertised it as "the American Revised Ver- 
 sion." The protests from members of the 
 American Companies led to the withdrawal 
 of this title. It was intimated that the 
 Presses were not aware of the purpose of 
 the American Revisers to publish an edition 
 of their own ; but this purpose had been fre- 
 quently announced, and certain facts, pre- 
 sented by Professor Thayer, indicate that 
 the University Presses should have been 
 fully aware of the proposed publication 
 in America. The discussions of 1899, 
 however, made clear the character of this 
 English edition, and while it remains a 
 useful help for the Biblical scholar, it is 
 not "The American Revised Version." It 
 had little or no efifect upon the success of 
 the latter, though anticipating it by two 
 years. 
 
 On the return of Professor Thayer from 
 
 Europe in 1899 the editors met for a final 
 
 review of the entire work. The text, the 
 
 margins, the headings, the references, the 
 
 64 
 
The Preparation 
 
 paragraphs, the punctuation, were discussed 
 afresh and in detail. The knowledge that 
 the edition was soon to appear called forth 
 a large number of suggestions from many 
 correspondents. Each of these was duly 
 considered, though very few of them were 
 accepted by the editors, who had already, 
 at some stage of their labors, taken action 
 on the points presented by these correspond- 
 ents. Arrangements were also made for the 
 Appendix, showing the divergences from 
 the Version of 1881, for the Preface and 
 title-page; and certain details in printing 
 the poetic parts of the Book of Revelation 
 were agreed upon. 
 
 The last meeting was held on April 19, 
 1900, and thc."copy" at once placed in the 
 hands of the printers. 
 
 The proofreading was exacting work. 
 The proofs were submitted three times to 
 each of the editors, and they interchanged 
 the corrected proofs before returning them 
 to the printer. Every page contained five 
 or six different kinds of type, and the cor- 
 rect position of the reference letters and 
 numbers called for judgment as well as 
 constant care. By June, 190T, the body of 
 the work, the prefaces and title-pages were 
 65 
 
TJie Revised New Testament 
 
 in press. Drs. Dwight and Thayer then 
 sailed for Europe, leaving the present writer 
 to carry the Appendix through the press. 
 The last proof of the last page was cor- 
 rected in the room at Castine, Maine, where 
 these lines are penned, and sent off July 15, 
 1 90 1. Twenty-nine years had well-nigh 
 elapsed since the American Company began 
 its work. 
 
 The American Standard Edition of the 
 Revised Version of the Bible was placed 
 on sale August 26, 1901. 
 
 66 
 
SECTION VIII 
 
 The Reception of the American 
 Revised Bible 
 
 The reception of the American Revised 
 Version was a cordial one, on the part of 
 nearly all Biblical scholars, in the United 
 States. The Bible-reading public had been 
 prepared to welcome it. The twenty years 
 since the edition of 1881 appeared had edu- 
 cated multitudes as to the infelicities, and in- 
 accuracies of the Authorized Version. The 
 prejudices which assailed the earlier edition 
 had been to a large extent removed. The 
 constant use of the Revised Version in Sun- 
 day-schools and Bible schools had raised 
 up a generation of readers that had heard 
 something of textual criticism and had dis- 
 covered some of the reasons for changes that 
 had been pronounced "needless" or "unwar- 
 ranted." There was, of course, a renewal of 
 the accusation of "bad English," resting on 
 the assumption that King James' Version 
 remained the absolute standard of correct 
 English. In the Theoloc^ical Seminaries 
 67 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 and other schools for Christian workers 
 there was an immediate welcome. The 
 reviews in periodicals of every kind were 
 favorable, whenever penned by a compe- 
 tent and discriminating contributor. It 
 was soon necessary to issue other editions, 
 conformed to the quarto Standard edition. 
 To some of these the publishers appended 
 maps and other helps for the Bible 
 student, including a condensed Concord- 
 ance. The New Testament was soon 
 issued separately, and the promise of 
 cheap editions was fulfilled. 
 
 In England the circulation of the book 
 was necessarily restricted, but many favor- 
 able comments have been published from 
 time to time in Great Britain. 
 
 In some parts of the United States where 
 the mode of baptism has been a prominent 
 topic of controversy, the Revisers were 
 sharply criticized for their rendering, "in 
 water." The facts in regard to this render- 
 ing have already been fully stated (§ 4). 
 
 Very soon after the appearance of the 
 American Revised Bible efforts were made 
 in several ecclesiastical bodies to secure an 
 official approval of it, or at least a permis- 
 sion to use it in public worship. In many 
 68 
 
The Reception 
 
 Protestant churches such a permission is not 
 necessary. Indeed Bishop Westcott stated 
 in one of his pubHshed lectures on the Re- 
 vised Version that, if a parish clergyman 
 chose to use it in reading the appointed 
 Scripture lessons, his bishop would have no 
 authority to forbid the practice. The Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States took action which implied the pro- 
 priety of revision, but did not permit the 
 use of the Version of 1881-85. A commit- 
 tee of the General Convention prepared a 
 volume with alternate renderings, taken 
 mainly from the English Revised Version, 
 to be used at the discretion of the officiating 
 clergyman. This v^as prepared before the 
 Revision of 19.01 appeared. This volume is 
 not convenient for use. and serves to 
 weaken the authority of the old Version 
 without upholding that of the Revision. 
 Its only practical value is in sustaining the 
 authority of the ecclesiastical body that 
 issued it. 
 
 The Revisers have never urged any eccle- 
 siastical approval of the American Revised 
 Bible, preferring that it should win its way 
 upon its intrinsic merits and not by the 
 pressure of authority. Still, in view of the 
 6q 
 
The Revised Nezu Testament 
 
 scruples of many ministers and the prej- 
 udice of many more laymen in regard to the 
 use of it, there is a propriety in formal 
 action such as has been taken by a number 
 of ecclesiastical bodies. For example, the 
 Presbyterian Church (North) has author- 
 ized the use of the American Revised Bible 
 in public worship. Yet the whole family of 
 Presbyterian Churches has been using King 
 James' Version without any ecclesiastical 
 sanction. The Directory for Worship, in 
 the seventeenth century, only prescribed 
 that the Scriptures be read in public wor- 
 ship, from "the most approved translation." 
 At that time the Geneva Version was prob- 
 ably used by the great majority of the con- 
 gregations. It would have been very inju- 
 dicious to direct that King James' Ver- 
 sion be read in the churches. So that, 
 as a matter of enactment, the American 
 Revised Bible is the only one ever "author- 
 ized" by any Presbyterian churches. 
 
 It is a curious fact that there is some 
 doubt as to whether the term "Authorized" 
 is properly applied to King James' Version. 
 While the title-page, in English editions, 
 contains the words "appointed to be read 
 in churches," there is no official document 
 70 
 
The Reception 
 
 now in existence which contains a record 
 of such appointment. The official docu- 
 ments that presumably gave the authoriza- 
 tion were destroyed by fire in 1618. At 
 all events the Book of Common Prayer con- 
 tains selections from the older versions, 
 notably the Psalter from Coverdale's trans- 
 lation. As late as 1650 the Bishops' Bible 
 was used in the pulpit of the First Church 
 of Hartford, Connecticut, and editions of 
 the Geneva Bible were printed in England 
 as late as 1644. It is probable that the 
 American Revised Bible is now used more 
 extensively in the United States than King 
 James' Version was in England seven 
 years after its appearance. 
 
 Certainly there has not been any such 
 scholarly and determined opposition to the 
 former as was encountered by the latter. It 
 is unwise to forecast the ultimate result; 
 but the present situation indicates a grow- 
 ing future acceptance. Certainly in all 
 earnest Biblical study, whether clerical or 
 lay, the American Revised Bible must and 
 will be recognized, and its authority, 
 whether formally and officially endorsed or 
 not, will be regarded as superior to that of 
 the older versions. It is significant that the 
 71 
 
TJie Revised New Testament 
 
 American. Bible Society has arranged with 
 Messrs. Nelson and Sons to place the 
 new Version side by side with its own 
 issues. Nearly all the denominational 
 boards of publication aid in its circula- 
 tion. The journals devoted to Sunday- 
 school literature almost invariably print 
 the text of the lessons from the American 
 Revised Bible, usually in addition to 
 the text from the Authorized Version. 
 The lesson helps necessarily recognize 
 the superior value of the new renderings. 
 All this tends to establish the authority 
 of the new Version, and to dissipate the 
 prejudice that has so greatly hindered the 
 use of it in public worship. It is frequently 
 said : The Revised Version is very useful 
 for purposes of study, but the Authorized 
 Version should be retained for devotional 
 purposes. But this implies that devotion is 
 solely a matter of association, and is not 
 furthered by accurate knowledge of wdiat 
 God has caused to be written for our learn- 
 ing. Granting all the religious influence of 
 memory and familiarity, it would seem that 
 knowledge of the exact sense of the 
 Scripture must in the end be most con- 
 ducive to an intelligent devotion. 
 72 
 
SECTION IX 
 
 The Distinctive Features of 
 
 THE American Revised New Testament 
 
 The Version of the New Testament pub- 
 Hshed in 1881 presents the main features 
 of superiority to the Authorized Version, 
 and includes a great deal of the work of the 
 American Company. This has already 
 been stated, but it may be well to indicate 
 the points of superiority common to that 
 Version and the Version of 1901, before 
 setting forth the distinctive features of the 
 latter. 
 
 I. The Greek text. See Section 3. The 
 two Versions are based upon the critical 
 text of recent editors, and are in substan- 
 tial agreement. The number of readings 
 differing from the "Received Text," which 
 were accepted by both Companies, is 
 nearly six thousand. Of course most of 
 these are slight verbal changes, yet nearly all 
 affect to some extent the English form. The 
 two Versions differ in about twenty-five 
 instances. This includes the cases where 
 73 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 the reading in the text and that in the 
 margin exchange places. The more im- 
 portant passages are: Luke 15:16; John 
 10:8; 14:14; 17:24; Acts 13:18; 16:13; 
 20:28; (''of the Lord" in text, instead of 
 "of God"); Romans 4:1; 5:1; i Corin- 
 thians 2 :i ; 7 :33, 34 ; Ephesians 1:15; He- 
 brews 4:2; 8:8; 10:1, 34; 12:34. It thus 
 appears that both Versions are very much 
 closer to the original text than the Au- 
 thorized Version, or the Latin Vulgate. 
 Both omit the subscriptions at the close 
 of the Epistles, since these have no early 
 support, and are in some cases incorrect. 
 
 2. The diction of the two versions is 
 well-nigh identical. A very few words are 
 peculiar to each. "Apparition" occurs in 
 the EngHsh Version (Matt. 14:26; Mark 
 6:49), but for this the American Revision 
 substitutes "ghost," which is allowable, be- 
 cause that term as applied to the third Per- 
 son of the Trinity has been replaced by 
 "Spirit" in the American Version. The 
 English remains that of the seventeenth 
 century, though many archaisms have dis- 
 appeared. 
 
 3. Uniformity of rendering. In this 
 respect the two Versionswere prepared on 
 
 74 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 a common principle, and differ very slightly 
 in the application of it. During the period 
 of co-operation with its interchange of 
 views, each successive review resulted in 
 greater uniformity. 
 
 4. Tenses. In rendering the tenses of the 
 Greek verb both Versions are far more 
 accurate than the Authorized Version, 
 which is often misleading. While all 
 the distinctions of the Greek cannot be 
 indicated in English, owing to the different 
 theories on which the tenses in the two 
 languages are constructed, great improve- 
 ment is manifest in both the Revised Ver- 
 sions. The Greek tenses primarily repre- 
 sent modes of action; the English tenses 
 represent time*; hence the latter do not 
 always fairly reproduce the sense of the 
 former. The use of participles in Greek is 
 peculiar, and a failure to recognize this led 
 to serious mistakes in the Authorized Ver- 
 sion. For example: In Acts 1:8 and 19:2 
 the Revised Version renders: "Ye shall 
 receive power, when the Holy Spirit is 
 come upon you," and "Did ye receive the 
 Holy Spirit when ye believed?" The 
 Greek participle used in the last clause of 
 each of these passages indicates a fact co- 
 75 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 temporaneous with the leading verb. Yet 
 the Authorized Version, by rendering 
 "after that" and "since" impHes an interval 
 of time of which the' Greek gives no hint. 
 In hundreds of instances similar changes 
 are made in the interest of accuracy. 
 
 5. The Article. While the use of the 
 Greek article does not exactly correspond 
 with that of the English, in many instances 
 the Authorized Version fails to recognize 
 it, and thus obscures the sense. This is 
 especially true in the important passage, 
 Romans 5:12-21, where "the one" and "the 
 many" are peculiarly significant. So, too, 
 where "the Christ" refers to the Messiah, 
 and not directly to our Lord. 
 
 6. Prepositions. In rendering the Greek 
 prepositions the versions of 1881 and 1901 
 are accurate and usually in agreement. En- 
 tire uniformity is impossible, and in some 
 passages the two Versions diflfer. 
 
 Yet the American Revised New Testa- 
 ment has many distinctive peculiarities. 
 
 I. The Title Pa^e. Here the phrase 
 "The New Covenant commonly called the 
 New Testament" is peculiar. The Greek 
 word, often rendered "Testament" in the 
 Authorized Version, which occurs in the 
 76 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 title, in every case but one in the New 
 Testament (Heb. 9: 16, 17) means "cov- 
 enant," and this is a far more appropriate 
 term for the entire collection of books. 
 
 2. T]ic List of Books. Here there are 
 several peculiarities. "The Gospel" is the 
 general name of four books which are thus 
 specified : — 
 
 According to Matthew 
 
 According to Mark 
 
 According to Luke 
 
 According to John 
 
 Here and in the titles of the several 
 books the word ''Saint" is omitted. "The 
 Acts" is the briefer form given ; "Apostle" 
 is omitted in the titles of the Pauline 
 Epistles; the words "of Paul the Apostle" 
 are properly dropped from the title of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews ; "General" is 
 omitted from the titles of the Epistles of 
 James, Peter, John, and Jude, being en- 
 tirely inapplicable to several of them ; "The 
 Revelation of John" is the briefer title pre- 
 fixed to the Apocalypse, the designation 
 "the Divine" (literally, "the Theologian") 
 being of late origin. The English Revisers 
 have retained the inaccurate titles of the 
 Authorized Version. 
 
 77 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 3. Divisions. While the paragraph divi- 
 sion is adopted in both Versions, instead of 
 breaking the matter into verses, the verse 
 numbers are placed in the text of the Amer- 
 ican Revision, instead of in the margin. 
 The paragraphs are slightly more numer- 
 ous, and in some cases the arrangement 
 differs from that of the English Revision. 
 A notable instance is at Romans 3 :2i. In 
 most of the Epistles the main divisions are 
 indicated by leaving a line blank between 
 two principal parts. In the Book of Rev- 
 elation the anthems and Glorias have been 
 printed so as to indicate their character. 
 
 4. The Headings. This feature is en- 
 tirely new. In many editions of the 
 Authorized Version each chapter is pref- 
 aced by headings. But these are often 
 incorrect and are rarely used. By pre- 
 senting the headings at the top of the 
 page, the American Revision makes the 
 use of them more convenient, and the 
 headings themselves, having been made 
 with great care, are accurate and helpful. 
 
 5. Fezver Archaisms. Reference has al- 
 ready been made to the substitution of 
 "who" or "that" when persons are referred 
 to. But many more changes of the same 
 
 78 
 
The DistiJictive Features 
 
 general character appear in the American 
 Revised Version. The Appendix to the 
 quarto edition contains a list of twenty-four 
 archaic forms, occurring in the English 
 Revision, which have been discarded. 
 'Tiowbeit" has been replaced by other con- 
 junctions in a number of instances, and 
 "treated" has been substituted for "en- 
 treated." "Teacher" is substituted for 
 "Master," where the Greek term didaskalos 
 is applied to Jesus. 
 
 6. Spelling. This has been largely 
 altered to conform with American usage. 
 The "u" has been dropped in such words 
 as "honor," etc. But the form "Saviour" 
 has been retained in deference to sacred 
 associations. In many cases the usage 
 followed is that of lexicographers anterior 
 to Noah Webster. Of course there was no 
 effort to introduce "simplified spelling." 
 
 7. Punctuation. The Authorized Version 
 in its punctuation uses what is called 
 "heavy stopping," and both Revised Ver- 
 sions have followed it, since the adoption of 
 the modern system would have called for 
 an immense number of changes. The 
 "heavy stopping" makes use of the colon 
 and semi-colon to a much larger extent than 
 
 70 
 
The Revised N'ew Testament 
 
 the modern system, and employs the comma 
 where it is now deemed unnecessary. This 
 aids in the accurate presentation of the 
 relation of clauses, and questions of punc- 
 tuation were frequently and fully discussed. 
 The American editors have occasionally 
 made alterations, usually by a lighter punc- 
 tuation. In one important instance, Acts 
 18:23, commas have been introduced to 
 indicate the view taken of that particular 
 passage. The English Revision leaves it 
 uncertain whether Phrygia and Galatia 
 refer to two regions or one (as some now 
 hold), but the" American Revision, by its 
 punctuation, indicates that two distinct 
 districts of country are meant, thus op- 
 posing what is called *'the South Galatian" 
 theory of St. Paul's journeys. It may be 
 stated here, that in some editions of the 
 American Standard New Testament a 
 comma is omitted after "eternal" in 2 
 Corinthians 5:1. This is a typographical 
 error, which has been corrected. "Eter- 
 nal" is not to be directly connected with 
 "in the heavens." 
 
 8. References. These are newly selected, 
 as has been already stated (§7). While 
 some- of the passages refer to similar 
 80 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 thoughts, many, especially those introduced 
 by "see" or "compare," are intended to 
 throw light upon the use of words. Par- 
 allel passages in the Gospels are indicated 
 by italics. 
 
 9. Special Passages. Some of the pas- 
 sages in which the American Revisers differ 
 from the English are here selected. These 
 specimens will serve to indicate the methods 
 of the editors, and in some cases to justify 
 their emendations. They are arranged in 
 the order of occurrence. 
 
 Matthew 2:1,7, 16. "Wise-men," to show 
 that one Greek term is thus rendered, and 
 by the use of a capital letter to indicate 
 that it is a title. 
 
 Matthew 10:39; 16:25, 26, and parallel 
 passages. The marginal rendering "Or, 
 sour' is omitted, as inappropriate. 
 
 Matthew 19:14 and Mark 10:14; Luke 
 18:16. "To such belongeth" is substituted 
 for "of such is," since the Greek genitive, 
 literally, "of such" seems to have a pos- 
 sessive force. 
 
 Matthew 26:45 ^"d Mark 14:41. The 
 added marginal rendering: "Do ye sleep on, 
 then, and take your rest?" suggests a prob- 
 able view of the passage. 
 81 
 
The Revised New Testame^it 
 
 Matthew 27 127 and John 18 128, 33 ; 19 :9. 
 "Praetorium," the Latin name for the official 
 residence of the Roman governor, is put in 
 the text instead of the margin. 
 
 Mark 14:3 and John 12:3. "Pure nard" 
 instead of the uninteUigible word * 'spike- 
 nard." The Enghsh Revision gives an ex- 
 planatory marginal note. The American 
 margin is "Or, liquid nard!' 
 
 Luke 17:11. "Along the borders" instead 
 of "through the midst," suggests a more 
 probable view of this particular journey, 
 and is equally allowable grammatically. 
 
 Luke 18:7. "And yet he is." By insert- 
 ing "yet" a more intelligible view of the 
 passage is presented. The marginal ren- 
 dering, however, deserves consideration. 
 
 John 5 \2y. "A son of man" instead of 
 "the Son of man." The English edition 
 gives the former as a marginal rendering. 
 
 John 1 1 :39. "The body decayeth" in- 
 stead of the somewhat coarse rendering 
 "he stinketh." 
 
 John 17:24. The reading accepted here 
 by the American Revisers, while less at- 
 tested than the harsher one preferred by the 
 English Revisers, presents the sense quite 
 clearly. 
 
 82 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 Acts 17:22. ''Very religious." This 
 preserves the courteous character of Paul's 
 utterance. "Somewhat superstitious" fails 
 in this respect. 
 
 Acts 20:28. "The Lord" is placed in the 
 text, with this margin: "Some ancient 
 authorities, including the two oldest manu- 
 scripts, read God!^ The English Revisers 
 put "of God" in the text, with the margin : 
 "Many ancient authorities read the Lord!' 
 Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of 
 the reading preferred by the American Re- 
 visers, which was sent to England, and 
 afterwards included in a posthumous vol- 
 ume of Critical Essays from his pen. 
 
 Acts 26:28, 29. The marginal render- 
 ings added by the American Revisers sug- 
 gest a very probable interpretation of the 
 language of Agrippa and Paul. 
 
 Acts 28:16. The longer reading, which 
 is placed in the margin of both editions, 
 is altered in accordance with recent investi- 
 gations. The Roman officer spoken of was 
 "Chief of the camp," where prisoners were 
 received, and not "the Captain of the prae- 
 torian guard." 
 
 Romans i :i7. "From faith unto faith" is 
 a better rendering than "by faith unto 
 83 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 faith." The correspondence in Greek with 
 the preposition in the next clause is shown 
 by a marginal note. In the American 
 Appendix (1881) the statement as to the 
 margin is misleading. 
 
 Romans 3:9. ''Better" is retained from 
 the Authorized Version. **In worse case" 
 suggests a thought opposed by the context. 
 
 Romans 3:25. "In his blood" is prefer- 
 able to "by his blood." The English margin, 
 "Or, faith, in his blood," is properly omitted. 
 
 Romans 4:1. "Our forefather, hath found 
 according to the flesh" instead of "our fore- 
 father according to the flesh hath found?" 
 While the better attested reading seems to 
 favor the latter order, thus making "accord- 
 ing to the flesh" simply explain "fore- 
 father," the context suggests the ethical 
 sense. This is best expressed in English 
 by the order of thq American Version. 
 
 Romans 5:1. "We have" with margin, 
 "Many ancient authorities read let us have." 
 The latter reading is better attested, yet in- 
 ternal reasons led to the acceptance of "we 
 have" in the text. This variation affects 
 also verses 2 and 3. 
 
 Romans 5 13, 4. "Knowing that tribula- 
 tion worketh stedfastness ; and stedfastness, 
 84 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 approvedness ; and approvedness, hope." 
 "Stedfastness" is usually given as a mar- 
 ginal rendering for "patience." Here it 
 seemed best to put it in the text. "Ap- 
 provedness" was finally, after much dis- 
 cussion, substituted for "probation" (Eng- 
 lish Revision) and "experience" (Author- 
 ized Version), neither of which expresses 
 so exactly the sense of the Greek. 
 
 Romans 7:25. "I of myself with the 
 mind, indeed, serve," instead of "I myself 
 with the mind serve." "Of myself" im- 
 plies independently of the grace of God 
 in Christ. 
 
 Romans 8:4-13. "Spirit" instead of 
 "spirit," since the Holy Spirit is referred 
 to. 
 
 Romans 8:24. "In hope" instead of "by 
 hope," pointing to the condition of "hope" 
 in which believers are placed when salva- 
 tion begins. 
 
 Romans 14:1. "Decision of scruples" is 
 more intelligible than "doubtful disputa- 
 tions." 
 
 I Corinthians 2:13. "Combining spiritual 
 
 things with spiritual words," instead of 
 
 "comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 
 
 The preceding context favors the former 
 
 85 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 view, which is accepted by Bishop Ellicott. 
 
 I Corinthians 7 133, 34. Here, in addition 
 to a difference as^to'the preferable reading, 
 the Enghsh Revision has an alternate ren- 
 dering. 
 
 I Corinthians 12:31. "And moreover a 
 most excellent way,'' instead of "And a still 
 more excellent way." This implies a slightly 
 different view of the relation of Chapters 
 12 and 13. 
 
 I Corinthians 14:33, 34. The division of 
 paragraphs accepted in the American Re- 
 vision makes the last clause of verse 33 refer 
 to women speaking in the churches. 
 
 I Corinthians 15:2. "Saved, if he hold 
 fast," presents a preferable view of the con- 
 nection, which is substantially that of the 
 margin in the English Revision. 
 
 I Corinthians 16 '.22. "Marana tha" with 
 the margin, "That is O (or Our) Lord, 
 Come!" The English Revision has "Maran 
 atha" with the margin, "That is. Our Lord 
 cofneth/' The American Revisers regard 
 "tha" as an imperative, which is the view 
 of recent commentators, the older view 
 taking "atha" as an indicative. Hence many 
 have supposed the form in the American 
 Revision was a typographical error, but it 
 86 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 represents a different view, a^ the margin 
 plainly indicates. 
 
 2 Corinthians 3:18. "Beholding as in a 
 mirror," with the margin, "Or, rejecting as 
 a mirror/' In the English Revision the text 
 and margin exchange places. 
 
 2 Corinthians 12:21. "Lest again when I 
 come my God," instead of "lest, when I 
 come again, my God." The passage has a 
 bearing on the question of Paul's visits to 
 Corinth. 
 
 Galatians 2:20. "And it is no longer I 
 that live, but Christ" is simpler than "yet I 
 live; and yet no longer I, but Christ." 
 
 Galatians 5:1. "For freedom" is prefer- 
 able to "With freedom." The former is in 
 the English margin. With this verse a new 
 division of the Epistle begins, and hence it 
 should not be appended to the preceding 
 paragraph. 
 
 Philippians 2 :6. "Existing" is preferable 
 to "being" and the rendering of the latter 
 part of the verse more literal. 
 
 Philippians 3 :8. "Refuse" is one of the 
 meanings of the term rendered "dung." 
 
 2 Thessalonians 2 :2. "Is just at hand" is 
 more exact than "is }tozv present." 
 
 Hebrews 2:16. "Give help" and "givcth 
 87 
 
The Revised New Testament 
 
 help" are more intelligible than "lay hold" 
 and ''layeth hold." 
 
 Hebrews 4:2. "It was" yields a clear 
 sense, while "they were" is almost unintel- 
 ligible. 
 
 Hebrews 10:1. "Can," agreeing with "the 
 law," is preferable to "they can." The 
 plural is well attested, but can scarcely be 
 interpreted with clearness. 
 
 Hebrews 11 :i. The rendering of this 
 verse in the American Revision is more con- 
 sistent and intelligible than that of the Eng- 
 lish Revision, which has "the assurance" 
 and "the proving of." 
 
 Hebrews 12:3. "Himself" is not so well 
 attested as "themselves." But the latter 
 seems to be weak and inappropriate. 
 
 Hebrews 12:17. "No place for a change 
 of mind in his father" with two marginal 
 renderings; of these the former is that of 
 the English Revision, the latter that of the 
 Authorized Version. The choice is between 
 the rendering in the text and the first 
 one in the margin. 
 
 Revelation 1 113. The marginal rendering 
 *'0r, the Son of man" is properly omitted, 
 since there is no allusion to the title our 
 Lord gives to himself. 
 
The Distinctive Features 
 
 This brief sketch may be closed most 
 appropriately by citing the final paragraph 
 of the Revisers' Preface* : — 
 
 'The present volume [that is, the 
 American Revised New Testament], it is 
 believed, will on the one hand bring a plain 
 reader more closely into contact with the 
 exact thought of the sacred writers than 
 any version now current in Christendom, 
 and on the other hand prove itself especially 
 serviceable to students of the Word. In 
 this belief the editors bid it anew God- 
 speed, and in the realization of this de- 
 sired result they will find their all- 
 sufficient reward." 
 
 *This paragraph is from the pen of Dr. Thayer, the last 
 of his many labors on the American Revised New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 89 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 m%^ 
 
 IBM 
 
 
 
 unviJJ^ 
 
 mf^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Demco, Inc. 38-?93 
 
The ??ory o1 the Revised New Testament, 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1012 00061 6054