THE BISHOP OF WELLINGTON ON THE REVISED TESTAMENT.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 91, 15 October 1881, Page 2

THE BISHOP OF WELLINGTON ON THE REVISED TESTAMENT.

In his address to the Synod tho Bishop of Wellington made the following remarks on tho Revised Version of the New Testament :— " I should scarcely allude on the present occasion to the Revised Version of the New Testament printed at the University Prose both at Oxford and Cambridg >, were it not that an erroneous impression as to its status, if 1 may be allowed the expression, has ffot ° abroad. Tho revision oommittee began their labours at the request of Convocation ; but tho persons who composed this so-called committee were not only not all members of - the Convocation, but were not even all members of the Church. At present it is in no sense authorised : it has not yet b«en even recognised by Convocation, it remains to be seen whether in its present form it will rec?ive the sanction of that body. It cannot now be used in the public services of tho Church in this Ecclesiastical Province. It would be presumption on my part to venture any opinion as to its merits. It has beon confidently said by some peraon3 that doctrine will be seriously affected by tho now version. But as the original Oreok has hitherto been in the possession of theologians it is not very easy to understand what is meant by such an assertion. Many manifest errors have been corrected ; but the bo errors had for the most part been well known to those who made use of tha original. On one point only am I inclined to demnr to the wisdom of the revisers, I mention this because I have not seen it alluded to by others, though I do co with somo diffidence, my knowledge of manuscripts being only at second hand . Too much of importance seems to hava been given to one or two ancient manuscripts. I feel disposed to regard &a ill-judged some of the marginal notes which appear to attach great weight to the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, which aro in many respects unquestionably very corrupt. Tho note referring to the last twelve verses in th<» Gospel by St. Mark is an instance of what I mean. Much greater unanimity among competent scholars as to how far the G reek text to ba used could be deemed correct onght to have been a preliminary necessity for a final revision. By final, I mean one so far final a3 would justify its substitution for the Authorised Version. What ha 3 been dono may be thankfully accepted as a useful step in the right direction. It would perhaps at , present be hardly safe to say more. Meanwhile, the new version cannot prove otherwisa than a great h«lp to those who may use it in private towards obtaining a more correct insight into the meaning of Holy Scripture. The mere fact that different wjrds are used has ft tendency to rouse the mind to think, and to look deeper into as wel as reflect more upon what is read. Besides, the reader who i 3 unacquainted with the original may rest assured that the learning and scholarship bestowed upon the work were of the highest order, and that it may therefore justly claim hi<? fullest confidence for accuracy of translation." {For further ntwt ses page 4.