It will be seen that every precaution was thus taken to ensure that no unneces.sary changes should be introduced into a version already hal- lowed by so many and so varied associations ; and j)robably the charge that is most frequently brought against the Revisers is that they were too apt to lose sight of this. At the same time, it is only fair to them to keep in view the varied causes
• Scrivener, The AuthurUi^d Edition, p. 3. These clianj;e8 may also be conveniently studied in The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Scrivener, ISTa.
t See i'lumptre, art. 'Version (Authorized)* in Smith's DB lii. 1678ff.
J The historj' of the RV still remains to be written, but •mongrst reCL-nt works which helped to prepare the way for it mav be mentioned Trench, On the A V o/ the NT in connexion viih gome recent proi>oitaU for its recision^, 1859; EUicott, Coiisiiieratitms on the liemsion of the English Version of Ihr S'T. ISTu ; Lightfoot, On a Fresh Itnimm of the English NT \ 1891 ; the Revisions of the Gospel of St. John and of several of the Pauline Epistles by Five Clergymen, the first part of which appeared in 1857 ; and Dean Alford s lievised ST, 1869.
that made many changes inevitable. Thus, in the matter of text alone, it has been estimated th.at the text underlying the revised NT of 1881 differed from that of 1611 in no less than 5788 readings ;* while other variations were necessitated by obvious misunderstandings of the original, by the removal of archaisms, and by previous incon- sistencies in the rendering of the same words and phrases. Numerous, however, as the differences between the Revised and Authorized versions thus came to be, it is reassuring to know tliat in no particular have they seriously affected any of the doctrines of our faith, though in not a few in- stances these doctrines are now presented in a fuller and more convincing lightt
Tlie revision of the NT occupied about ten years and a half, and the result was published on May 17th, 1881. Four years later the Revised OT was ready, and thus on May 19th, 1885, the English reader had the whole Bible in his hands, ' being the ver.-ion set forth A.D. 1611 compared with the most ancient autliorities and revised.' Each Testa- ment was furnislied with a Preface detailing the principles on which the work had been carried through, and with an Appendix in which the American Companies, who had been associated in the work, placed on record certain points of trans- lation in which they differed from the English Companies. A revised translation of the Apoc- ryjjha by various committees of the Revisers was published in 18'J5. And in 1898 the work of re- vision was completed by the issue of a new edition of the Revised Bible with a carefully emended set of marginal references.
Literature. — The principal works dealing with the separate versions have already been referred to in the preceding pages. For the versions as a whole, Eadie, The EwjUsh Bible : an External and Critical History oj the various English Transla- tions ^f Scripture, 2 vols. 1876, is the most complete account; but much that is very valuable, especially with relation to the internal historj' of the text, will be found in the well-known Histories of Westcott and Moulton. Of a more popular char- acter are Stouf;hton, Our English Bible: its Translations and Translators (no date); Pattison, 7'Ae History of the English Bible, 1894 ; and The English Bible : a Sketch of its History, 1895, by the present writer, from which the foregoing account with various corrections and additions has been principally drawn. In Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895, the history of the text underlying our various versions is clearly set forth for the benefit of the ordinary readers of the Bible in English ; and in 7'he Evolution of the English Bible, 1901, by H. W. Hoare, the successive versions are interestingly described in connexion with their general historical setting.
Other works connected with the subject which may be con- sulted with advantage are, Lewis, History of the English Translations of the Bible, 1S18, and Anderson, The Annals of the English Bible, 2 vols. 1845, 1 vol. revised ed. 18()2, both of which, however, require to be carefuUv verified in the li^'ht of later knowledge ; Dore, Old Bibles 2, 1888 ; Edgar, The Bibles 0/ England, 1889; Mombert, English Versions of the Bible (no date); and the historical acooimt prefixed to Bagster's issue of The English Uexapla ^no date).
The principal authonty for the AV, as has been noted above. Is Scnvener, The Authorized Edition of Ute English Bible (1611), 1884 ; while to the books already mentioned a:^ dealing with the RV there may be added Newth, Lectures on Bible Jtevision, 1881 (with an Aiipendix containing the Prologues and Prefaces to the various versions) ; Kennetiy, Ely Lectures otl the HV of the ST, 1882 ; Iluniphry, Commentary a: the RV of the NT; Westcott, Some lessons if the RV of the NT, 1897; and Ellicott, Addresses on tlie RV, 1901, Reference may also be made to Biblical Revision, its Necessity and Purpose, 1879, the English republication of a series of Essays by menibcn of the American Revision Committee ; and to the Doaimentary History of the Atnerican Committee on Revision, 1885, pre- pared originally by order of that couunittee for the use of itd members. For" a vigorous but sometimes misleading criticism of the RV Bee Burgon, The Remsion Revised, 1883.