In 1887 the finest Māori book of the 19th century, a superbly produced edition of the Māori Bible, was published. Yet for Māori this proved not a publication to celebrate but an object of execration. The missionaries had taken away their precious book and replaced it with a fraud. This essay explores why Māori and missionary interests collided over this second edition of the Māori Bible.
A favourite theme in the history of the book has been how print has altered the balance between tradition and renovation in society. Yet the histories of the transmission of texts to newly literate people show that cultural transactions are two-sided, and that newly introduced literary works can be appropriated towards the preservation of tradition. The story of the Māori reception of the Bible has often been used as an example of cultural transformation through print. There is another side to the story, however, in which the Bible has become an instrument in the preservation of tradition.
From the advent of printing, the Bible was gradually recon-ceived as a printed book. As a written text it was more significant, more public, more lasting. Western intellectuals viewed the printed word as an externally verifiable text and, because it was printed, it was a source of coherent ideas. Those able to read were capable of rational thought. In the missionary context this gave the Bible great status — an illiterate people could not possess sacred texts. This did not mean there were no sacred words, but it page 30 did mean that the words were preserved solely by oral tradition and were therefore seen as non-rational.
Māori tradition was therefore challenged deeply by the advent of reading as much as it was by the Christian religion. The production of editions of the Bible in Māori gave Māori Christianity its own tradition through these books that were remarkable achievements. And while there has been much scholarly attention to the Paihia editions of Scripture by William Colenso, the history of publication of the Māori Bible was not confined to this one small press. In fact, the greatest Māori publications of the 19th century were later editions of the Bible issued from London presses. The focus of this essay, the 1887 London edition of the Māori Bible, is sometimes known as the 'classical edition', for its fine production, attractive typeface, binding and lack of typographical errors. In this edition, 6060 copies of the whole Bible, 4040 copies of the New Testament, and 2020 copies of the Gospels were produced.
Yet the edition was, from the point of view of its publishers, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and many of its Māori readers, a disaster. It met with a hostile reaction, as Māori complained that 'their Bible' had been taken from them, and the sales were pathetic. Eventually the Bible Society was forced to consider a reprint of earlier editions. Why was this book such a flop? The issue proves to be one of cultural appropriation, of the control and use of texts.
New Testament editions, 1837 to 1868
The 1887 Māori Bible was a moment in a long process. Its two texts, the Old and New Testaments, had quite different histories of translation and publication in Māori. The New Testament was prepared and issued on the Paihia Press in 1837, although a few excerpts had been published prior to this. The scale of the volume meant that its production was transferred to London in 1840, and new editions (with minimal changes to the text) were issued by the Bible Society in 1840, 1842 and 1845. By the end of the 1840s the colony was saturated with copies, some 72,000 in all.
By 1845, however, concerns had grown about the adequacy of the translation. It had obvious deficiencies including clumsy transliterations of English words because of the limited Māori vocabulary of the translators. There were also many typographical errors — hardly surprising given that Edwin Norris, who had checked page 31 the proofs in London, knew no Māori — and in 1847 a draft revision prepared by William Williams and Robert Maunsell was issued.
Williams went to England in 1851 and negotiated a new edition of the Māori New Testament. This fifth edition, checked by Williams it would seem, was produced in 1852 and is noteworthy for using the 'wh' rather than the 'w', perhaps reflecting Williams's base on the East Coast.1 This text represented a radical change to the 1837 version, and is perhaps the most crucial revision ever undertaken of the text.
William Colenso, however, was not impressed. In a letter to the Bible Society he complained that
Two great causes which have operated against ready disposal are the highly unnecessary alterations of texts in a people sensitive to ancient songs, or recitals of histories, so a great difficulty with the new edition, and also all the new little particles, ra ra hoke, na e hold, neo, ro pea which always sound so sweetly to a native ear having been expunged so that the present edition is much less truly a New Zealand edition than the 1st one . . . Doubtless there are differences of opinion on these issues, but the facts speak for themselves.2
Perhaps they did, but the translators sharply disagreed, and the Reverend Robert Burrows on behalf of the missionaries insisted that Māori recognised the purity of the language of the revision.3
Another edition of the New Testament and the Psalms with further corrections was issued in 1862. When it was decided to publish a one-volume edition of both Testaments in one Bible, yet another revision of the New Testament was begun by a group of missionary scholars, assisted by Sir William Martin, the Anglican layman and Chief Justice,4 and an editorial conference was convened in July 1867 to revise the Gospels.5 The discussions centred on a number of linguistic issues6 that, although seemingly minor, delayed production of the Bible. The final section of the revised New Testament was despatched by Robert Maunsell early in January 1868.
The Old Testament
The Old Testament translations had a much smoother genesis than those of the New Testament. All the 19th-century editions page 32 were prepared by Robert Maunsell, the Irish evangelical missionary in the Church Missionary Society, who was stationed in the Waikato.7 Maunsell's linguistic skills were recognised shortly after his arrival in New Zealand, for he alone among the missionaries knew Hebrew, and his translations were published gradually from 1840. In 1848, after several parts of the Pentateuch and other books had been issued, the six books from Genesis to Joshua were issued in one volume. Judges to Psalms were issued in 1855, then two volumes (Proverbs to Jeremiah, and Ezekiel to Malachi) were issued in a trial run in 1856 by the Paihia Press, now removed to St John's College, Auckland. After subsequent revision by three Anglican missionaries and three Wesleyans, they were published together in London in 1858,8 after the proofs had been checked by Bishop Charles Abraham.
Māori attitudes to the 1868 Paipera Tapu
So in 1868 a one-volume edition of the whole Bible was published,11 a substantial volume of 1199 pages of text arranged in two columns, with leather binding and heavy paper. Despite the imposing nature of the volume, its reception was disappointing. In the context of a disrupted and war-torn society, only 700 copies were sold in the three years after publication.12 The missionaries were deeply disappointed at this, but they had to some extent misinterpreted the earlier enthusiasm for the Bible. By the early 1860s there had been a wholesale decline in Māori enthusiasm for Christianity and the Bible.13 The Bishop of Waiapu noted at a Bible Society meeting that he had been told by a Māori in his diocese: 'We got our Christ from you, we now return it back'.14
Nevertheless the publication was the culmination of a process of great significance for Māori culture. The Māori Bible became a fundamental part of Māori spirituality, particularly on the marae. It became a tapu object, deeply respected and venerated both as an object and for the words it contained. Memorisation of the Bible was highly respected and the text became surrounded with as much tradition as the Authorised Version was in English. How deeply it changed Māori spirituality is an issue much debated in the modern Māori world, but, for example, when Te Kooti had page 33 his visions on the Chatham Islands in 1867, he fashioned his revelation in the words of the Māori Bible.
A new edition
In 1868 the Church Missionary Society in England (CMS) decided that the evangelisation of Māori ought in future to be the responsibility of the New Zealand church. Consequently future revisions of the Bible were at the initiative of the local Auckland Auxiliary of the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), a body responsible for raising funds for the BFBS from settlers and for distributing the English and Māori Bible throughout the province and the colony. In March 1884 the London office of the Bible Society suggested the preparation of a new edition of the Māori Bible to Henry Hassell Lawry, secretary of the Auckland Auxiliary and himself a former Wesleyan missionary and interpreter in the Native Land Court. Modest revisions — correcting misprints, harmonising and correcting ambiguous or wrong readings — were suggested. William Williams had died in 1878, and Alexander Reid, the only surviving Methodist of the team of the 1860s, had been transferred to a European circuit, but Robert Maunsell (although now aged 74) was 'full of vigour and fire'. He and Leonard Williams set to work promptly to facilitate the edition.'15 Maunsell concentrated on the Old Testament, Williams on the New.
Maunsell and Williams worked without the benefit of a large committee of review or any formal meetings and appear to have had no assistance from any Māori. Their only advice was from Archdeacon Edward Clarke and Henry Lawry. When the proofs were returned to New Zealand, Maunsell added innumerable further revisions, much to the frustration of the Bible Society.16 As a result of his penchant for corrections, the English printers slowed down typesetting hoping to eliminate expensive revisions, to the alarm of Maunsell, who feared that he would die before the process was complete.17 Leonard Williams was an excellent translator but he found it difficult to apply his mind to revision in view of more immediate and urgent tasks in his diocese.18 Revisions were also made by Lawry, particularly when the Auckland Auxiliary examined the proofs of the New Testament in 1887.19
The proofs were supposed to be checked by Bishop John Selwyn of Melanesia, the son of the Bishop of New Zealand, page 34 although his linguistic expertise was not in Māori. Bishop Abraham, the former Bishop of Wellington, made quite a number of corrections to the text, although he became less supportive when he chanced to see an unflattering description of his skills in a letter by Maunsell to Selwyn. He commented: 'Although I was not a good Maori scholar, that I was generally scholar enough to secure there being no special errors'.20 More work was done by Henry Williams's daughter Mrs Lydia Jane Carleton in England. She found that the last-minute textual changes had led to many inaccuracies.21 Some mistakes were found so late that they had to be included in four pages of errata at the end of the Bible.
Specifications for the new edition were debated from the beginning. The New Zealand Mission Board of the Church of England urged the preparation of an edition with cross references; Lawry wanted an edition with large typefaces for reading by the fireplace. Probably it was the sight of the translators rather than that of the Māori people that was deteriorating22 — the typeface used was in fact virtually the same as that of the 1868 Bible, although much smaller than that of the 1837 New Testament.
The edition was finally published late in 1888 and arrived in New Zealand in 1889, although its title page reads 1887. It was the same size as the 1868 Bible, although in board rather than leather covers, and at 1125 pages was about 75 pages shorter than the 1868 edition. The New Testament was separately paginated from the Old Testament, easing the publication of separate editions of the New Testament.
The influence of the Revised Version in English
It is fascinating to compare the 1887 Māori Bible with the Revised Version of the English King James ('Authorised') Version. The New Testament of the Revised Version was published in 1881 while the whole Bible was published to critical acclaim in 1885. The key scholarly achievement of the revisers was the abandonment of the so-called 'majority' or 'received text' in the original languages; instead they based their translation on a new critical edition of the Greek and Hebrew, the so-called Westcott-Hort edition. Maunsell's scholarly bent was aroused by such textual issues, and not just in the Old Testament, for he was also a very able Greek scholar, and had evidently long wanted to correct some of William Williams's work.23 As a staunch Protestant he valued page 35 textual accuracy as a means to focus revealed truth. The Revised Version New Testament was at his fingertips and he claimed to have carefully considered its renderings.24
Yet in this respect the 1887 Māori Bible is a disappointment. Maunsell took a very traditional line on some passages where the new manuscripts had challenged old readings. He retained such controverted passages as John 8:1-11, the long ending of Mark and the trinitarian verse in 1 John 5:7-8, which the English revisers viewed as late additions to the text. Many small textual revisions were missed. Thus in John 1:27 a suspect phrase, 'is preferred before me', was retained by the new Māori Bible, slightly modified as 'nōmua ia i a au'. Many conservatives believed that the Authorised Version was an inspired version, provided to give the Word of God to English people, and there were suspicions of the motives of the revisers. The Authorised Version fixed Christianity as a revealed religion. Maunsell was sympathetic to such views and we can probably see evidence of this in his approach to textual issues. If he was conservative, Māori were even more so, for they deeply shared faith in a sacred book, in which the text was not seen as words communicating a message, but as the voice of God.
In format, however, the Revised Version was much more influential. Maunsell drew attention to presentation of the text in paragraphs rather than verses in the English Revised Version, and the Auckland Committee noted the precedent of the use of paragraphing in the Tahitian Bible. Maunsell wanted to make the book less bulky and expensive, and paragraphing was bound to help, although changes in typeface and textual abbreviations also contributed. Bishop John Selwyn supported the proposal on the basis of some Melanesian translations and the format of the Revised Version.25 So the new edition printed the text in the same paragraphs as the English revision, with the verses indicated by a verse number in superscript. The Auckland Committee believed that the change would assist Māori to understand the text.
The paragraphing format assumed that the book was to be understood in large blocks of meaning, whereas the Māori tradition of chanting was greatly aided by the separation of verses. The verses were treated by Māori as the basic units of truth to be savoured individually. The notion of reading paragraphs assumes a linear approach to meaning, which was of little interest to Māori. After Māori reacted adversely to this and other features of the edition, Williams insisted that he had always firmly opposed page 36 the decision. Certainly he had voiced some nervousness about it, but had not been that emphatic when the London committee had queried the decision.26
This new format was accentuated by the use of headings for each paragraph grouped together at the beginning of each chapter which served to define the meaning of the chapter. The headings had been prepared first for a summary of the Bible prepared by Lawry and Maunsell and published in 1875 by the Auckland Auxiliary.27 Cross references to parallel passages were, after consideration, not added to the 1887 edition, but appeared in the edition of 1804.28
The 1887 edition also involved a curious new approach to the Māori language. Many textual changes were made to improve the Māori, at least in the eyes of the translators. Maunsell and Leonard Williams had agreed on a set of rules to guide the changes:
1. to correct misprints 2. to eliminate unnecessary words 3. to harmonise as much as possible the renderings, 4. to correct renderings that are ambiguous or otherwise faulty. We live far apart, so each prepared his notes & forwarded it to the other. Then marked and prepared until we come to matters needing a personal conference.29
Maunsell went far farther than this, simply because he 'could not restrain his pen when he saw the proofs' and amended passages that had not been his responsibility but were left unaltered by the dilatory Williams.30
These many emendations concentrated particularly on word order. The previous approach to translation of the Bible into Māori was primarily word by word rather than phrase by phrase, reflecting English rather than Māori word order at points (although the translators also consulted the Greek and Hebrew). This seems to explain many changes in the new edition. Another factor was vocabulary. The search for a more natural Māori was a key justification for the translation.31 Maunsell's Grammar of the New Zealand language (first edition 1842) had insisted on avoiding expressions influenced by English, and noted many examples of constructions used by Māori in their spoken language. He loathed earlier editions of the Bible for this reason.page 37
Linguistic style was another factor. It had been decided that the translation should be written in a dignified classical Māori rather than the Māori in everyday use, and was for this reason called the 'classical edition'.32 In this it reflected the philosophy of the English Revised Version, which its 19th-century revisers had sought to present in Elizabethan English so that it would have the dignity of the Authorised Version. Consequently the English Revised Version never gained popular appeal. It was not a good precedent for the revised Māori edition.33 Now there was at least some justification for this approach in English, for the publication of the Authorised Version had defined written English. The concept of classical written Māori is a non sequitur. Certainly there was a traditional oral language spoken in oratory on the marae and in recited whakapapa, but it can hardly be described as literary Māori. Maunsell, however, decided to invent it, concerned, as he wrote in 1842, that Māori was not well adapted to sensitive expressions, incapable of 'expressing as well the minutest varieties in thought as the tenderest emotions of the feelings'. In his opinion New Zealanders constructed sentences like children who had just learned to speak, and therefore their language had deficiencies in expressing the sacred text.34
At the same time a set of contrary principles led Maunsell to eliminate from his version characteristic features of traditional Māori oratory including redundant decorative phrases. These phrases had often presented problems to translators and headaches for proofreaders, since it was difficult to decide how to break them up into word units.35 The desire of the revisers to make the book smaller and therefore cheaper led them to see linguistic virtue in making the translation more concise. Lawry urged more 'terseness and vigour' in the translation, and Maunsell sought to adopt a vocabulary which combined brevity with clear and expressive language, a purism that had shades of racist superiority. Maunsell explained his motivation thus:
The Māori Bible is much larger than English Bible. This is an inconvenience to [the] Maori, who is almost always moving. It is a wordy language .. . [including] particles and adjuncts which have no meaning. We have agreed to cut off adjuncts (ornamental, as in kote miatanga mai; or Te tino whakatikanguaki o), though a Maori would use them. There was no written language when we came. We are now making one, and compelling, as it were, the colloquial language page 38 to reduce its dimensions. Hence the vast bulk of the erasures you will see.36
Maunsell, the chief advocate of this policy, overrode criticisms by other translators and curtailed the use of articles and particles with no particular function ('conversational redundancies'), and ornamental adjuncts like 'kote miatanga mai' and 'te tino whakati-kanguaki o37 He continued to use the macron, particularly to distinguish plurals from singular nouns, which had been pioneered in the 1868 edition. These decisions were most obvious in Job, Proverbs and the Psalms. Relatively minor changes of this kind could cause great annoyance since the Psalms were constantly recited in public worship.38 The New Testament had been subject to so many revisions since 1837 that the revisions were less drastic, although a long notebook of alterations indicates that Maunsell imposed many changes until others began complaining and he became more cautious.39 Bishop Abraham noted the curtailment of particles and articles, and some strange particles, including the use of'turia' in Matthew 19:1 and John 20:1; while Mrs Carleton had other queries.40 However, compared to the 1868 edition the changes do not seem particularly radical. In John Chapter 1 the major changes are the reduction in the use of the words 'taua' and 'tamaiti' in favour of'te' and 'tama'.
The text was approved by Lawry, who commented that 'the revision reads smoothly, is terse, idiomatic, and forceful, and preserves words, phrases and constructions that should be of value to linguists and critics'.41 Many of those who had learned the language by listening to it disagreed. Mrs Carleton, the daughter of Henry Williams, who learned Māori as a child, could not understand some of Maunsell's decisions, and with some courage challenged the principles of the three archdeacons, Maunsell, Williams, and their other consultant, Edward Clarke.42
A further factor was a dispute over the dialect of language used in the revision. The first translations, particularly of the New Testament, were written in the Ngāpuhi dialect, since all the missionary translators were based in the north, and regional variations were very significant in the 1820s. Just as the Authorised Version affected and stabilised the development of the English page 39 language, so the early translations of the Bible played a key role in 'fixing' a uniform form of the Māori language in which the Ngāpuhi dialect predominated. The Māori language changed significantly in the early years of European contact and its vocabulary grew and was modified through contact with western culture and between Māori from different tribes.43 This affected vocabulary, syntax and pronunciation. Consequently the form of language to be used in a general Māori translation remained controversial.
Maunsell preferred the translation to reflect the 'central dialect' of Māori, which he saw as the Waikato form of Māori, from the region where he had worked, and Lawry felt that this dominated the 1887 edition.44 Maunsell felt that Waikato forms of the language had been less polluted by contact with Europeans. He had argued this point from 1842 in his Māori language Grammar, and it influenced all his translations. In Colenso's opinion this had affected the acceptability of the earliest editions of the Old Testament in the Hawke's Bay.45 William Williams's new East Coast location probably influenced his 1852 revision of the New Testament. By the 1880s the CMS work in the north was much weaker, and consequently the Waikato forms were more extensively adopted, although Leonard Williams insisted that he had sought to bring a greater balance in the translation, and the Old Testament in particular was less dominated by Waikato turns of phrase than the 1868 edition.46
Arguably by the 1880s the translators were less in contact with Māori and missed many of the subtleties of these issues. The translation was prepared in Auckland and, unlike earlier translations, there is no evidence of consultation with Māori. The failure to allow Māori to participate in and own the task of translation reflected the continued paternalism of the Māori mission of the Church of England.
The extent of the rejection
The response to the 1887 edition was disastrous. Copies proved virtually unsaleable. No doubt this was affected by the decline in Māori population, and the inadequate distribution network at the time, but the problem went deeper. The translators had first experienced Māori dislike of revisions after the publication of the revised New Testament and prayer book in the 1850s. According page 40 to George Maunsell, son of the translator, '[revisions] already made seem only to perplex the Māori mind, and I had many enquiries for the old edition. I could sell two of the old edition for one of the new', he reported to his father, when the proposal for a new edition was raised.47 The most representative criticism came in a resolution of the Native Church Board of the Waiapu Diocese — where Leonard Williams was Bishop — including Māori clergy and 27 Māori laity as well as four Pākehā clergy. They demanded a version with separate verses and a more compact size.48 A particularly sharp complaint came from Māori in the Wairarapa who returned copies provided to them by the Reverend Arthur Owen Williams, declaring, 'Take your bibles away. They do not contain God's word, for the Ministers and pakehas and the Government have altered that Bible and added words of their own to it; but the old Book contains only God's words and we want that.'49 Hatred at land seizure led them to suspect every action by Pākehā. The New Zealand representatives of the BFBS had to ask for any new printing to be of the first edition in the old format, and there was some relief that there were still copies of that first edition available.50
It is a matter of opinion what factors were most critical in the rejection. One reason was that the revisers made no attempt to attract Māori support. However, given the number of alterations over the previous few years, the format of the edition was probably the crucial issue, rather than the linguistic alterations, although certainly these were not endearing to readers. In 1903 the Reverend Fred Spencer, a Māori speaker and the agent of the Bible Society in New Zealand, with the support of the Reverend Frederick Bennett, a Māori missionary, petitioned for a replacement for the 1887 edition on the grounds that its paragraphing was unpopular, its style was unattractive, and the volume was too large. The Editorial Committee consulted about these matters, and asked the opinion of Leonard Williams, whose views as a Bishop earned great respect. Williams naturally defended the 1887 edition, apart from the changes Maunsell had made without consulting him. He insisted that it was a mistake to say that the 1887 edition was 'not so much in the language of the people as the earlier one'. In his view the complaint was simply a conservative hostility to alteration of words made familiar by constant use. He accepted the complaint against the verse format, having observed how popular an edition of the New Testament presented in verse format was. Bishop Williams was not impressed by the page 41 call for a smaller book. While a portable edition would be useful, a large edition was necessary for churches. Meanwhile Spencer had more to say. Hearing that half the stock of Bibles — more than half the New Testaments, and 3600 of the 1897 edition of New Testaments with the Psalms — remained, he insisted that:
when the need of a fresh issue of the Bible for Māoris is compared with the needs of millions who have no scriptures at all, he thinks the Māoris should at least wait. They have the whole S[cripture]s accessible, and the dislike of the present issue is a matter of taste. Critics (in a good sense) are mosdy those who can easily consult the R. V, if they like. If a new ed[ition] were brought out, what would be done with die London stock? Of course, the longer the delay, the less will be the need-51
This dispute indicates how deeply the printed Bible affected the development of Māori culture, and contributed to the making of oral tradition. Although oral tradition has always been important in Māori society, after 1837 a written culture began to emerge, and the Christian contribution to that culture was decisive. Christian concepts deeply affected the 19th-century development of the marae.52 By the 1880s many Māori were participating in religious services based largely upon memorised passages of scripture, notably the Ringatū liturgy. Many Māori thought that the quaintness, familiarity and traditional forms preserved in the earlier version were appropriate to a sacred book. Language conveyed power, and spiritual power was tapu. Māori delighted in quotations from their heritage, and the new written texts were expected to reflect the oral form.53 As the revisers discovered, Māori people had become staunch traditionalists about the scriptures, and objected to any changes, even changes of format, in the later editions of the Bible. Lawry belatedly reported to the Bible Society that 'the extreme care with which oral traditions were handed down by Māoris with specially cultivated memories is made to tell against the alterations and improvements made in recent revisions. These are called Bible Society innovations.'54
The experience was not unique to New Zealand. Those with contact with other Pacific cultures have reported similar experiences. Consistently the language of the first translation gained a page 42 kind of sacred recognition, and alterations, even those which improved the translation, were resisted as improper. Thus the book was an agent of change and modernisation but was also managed and conformed to the values of the pre-literate society.55
In subsequent years there were two further revisions of the Bible. The 1952 edition, now in universal use, employed Māori (including Sir Apirana Ngata) among the translators and preserved the traditional verse format. Even for this version there is oral evidence to suggest that some Māori, particularly in the north, were irritated at the changes. All attempts at a contemporary translation have failed for want of support. Traditionalism inhibited the acceptance of new translations even in English for many years, so perhaps we should not be surprised that Māori preferred the scriptures to sound traditional.
Māori critics of the changes clearly resented the imposition of the text from outside, and Māori objections were more acute because the translators were suspected as imperialist. The 1952 edition preserved many of the 1887 reforms, but they were accepted because Māori had taken charge of the process. Greek and Hebrew scholars are bound to fault the 1952 edition for its retention of suspect readings based on the old Received Greek text, but in fact their decisions followed those of Maunsell, except for printing the trinitarian verses in 1 John 5:7-8 in italics. The new edition was acceptable primarily because Māori had approved it before publication.
The role of Māori books changed only very gradually between 1837 and 1952. In 1887 the translators assumed that the Māori Bible would be used in the manner in which Europeans used books. Māori in contrast viewed the printed text principally as a reference point for the memorised text. Meaning was found not by reading but by reciting. Even 65 years later this viewpoint remained influential. The book is useless if it is not appropriated, and Māori criteria for appropriation were very different from those of Europeans. These are deep issues, reflecting profoundly on the formation of the new Māori community and its willingness to appropriate European ways and Christian values in New Zealand.
1 See H. W. Williams A bibliography of printed Maori to 1900 and Supplement (Wellington: Government Printer, 1975; reprint of original editions of 1924 and 1928) item no.233, Ko te kawenata hou .... J. G. Laughton and P. R. Thomas in New Zealand and the world's book (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1964) p.19, maintain that Selwyn assisted, but he was not in England until 1854. See William Williams, letter to Rev. G. Browne, 15 July 1851 (British and Foreign Bible Society. Foreign Correspondence, Inwards, 1851 no.2, Cambridge University Library; hereafter cited as BFBS Archives, Inwards Correspondence). Also in BFBS, Monthly extracts no.4, 30 August 1851; and William Williams in The Turanga journals 1840-1850: Letters and journals of William and Jane Williams missionaries to Poverty Bay , ed. by Frances Porter (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1974), pp.573, 575.
3 R. Burrows, letter to Secretary BFBS, 16 October 1856 (British and Foreign Bible Society. Extracts From Letters, vol.1, p.42, Cambridge University Library and microfilm, Bible Society, Wellington; hereafter cited as BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters).
4 Church of England in New Zealand. Maori Bible Revision Committee. Revision notes printed for private circulation among the members of the missionary bodies in New Zealand (Auckland: Cathedral Press, 1862) outlines Maunsell's plan for the revision. Committee members are listed in the BFBS, Auckland Auxiliary, 13th Report, 1859, p.8. For Martin see R. Maunsell, letter to Rev. T. B. Bergne, 25 September 1862 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.3, 1863-4, p.19) and minutes of the BFBS Editorial Subcommittee, 25 January 1865, nos. 56-59 (British and Foreign Bible Society. Editorial Subcommittee Minutes, .vol.8, 1864-66, p.40, Cambridge University Library; hereafter cited as BFBS Archives, Editorial Subcommittee Minutes).
6 See 'Preliminary meetings between Maunsell and Archdeacon W. L. Williams to consider some points regarding the revision of the Maori version of the New Testament, 21 March 1867 [1857?]', in the Robert Maunsell papers, MS 2981, Alexander Turnbull Library, NLNZ (hereafter cited as Maunsell Papers).
7 See Helen Garrett, Te Manihera: The life and times of the pioneer missionary Robert Maunsell (Auckland: Reed Books, 1991).
8 See A. G. Bagnall, New Zealand national bibliography to the year 1960, Volume 1: to 1889 (Wellington: Government Printer, 1980; in 2 parts), items no.482-4.
10 See minutes of the BFBS Editorial Subcommittee, 20 July 1864, no.48 and 19 April 1865, no.2 r (BFBS Archives, Editorial Subcommittee Minutes, vol.7, 1862-4, P-184 and vol.8, 1864-7, P.6o).
12 BFBS. Auckland Auxiliary. 2.6th report (Auckland: The Society, 1872), p.7.
13 BFBS. Auckland Auxiliary, ifth report (Auckland:The Society, 1863), p.5.
14 Press (Christchurch), 10 May 1865, 2.
15 W. J. Baker (CMS), letter to Editorial Secretary, Editorial Subcommittee BFBS, 4 June  and H. Lang, letter to Editorial Secretary, 13 October  (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.19, pp.132-3 and pp.218-9). See also Maunsell, letters to A. Reid, 26 February 1885 (Maunsell Papers)
17 Ibid., 19 November  (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.22, p.112).
25 See [Reid], letter to Maunsell  (Maunsell Papers); Maunsell, letter to BFBS, 30 January ; Selwyn, letter to BFBS, 14 April  and Rev. H. T. Robjohns, Napier, letter to BFBS, 14 February  (BFBS Archives, Inwards Correspondence vol.20, p.59 and p.113; vol.22, pp.208-9). See also Minutes of the BFBS Editorial Subcommittee, 29 April 1885, nos. 49-50 (BFBS Archives, Editorial Subcommittee Minutes, vol.16, 1884-5, P.134).
26 Selwyn, letter to BFBS, 14 April ; Robjohns, letter to BFBS, 14 February  and W. L. Williams, letter to BFBS, 6 April 1891 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.20, p.113; vol.22 p.208 and vol.27, pp.334-5).
28 [A. Reid], letter to Maunsell  (Maunsell Papers).
29 BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.19 p.218. Also cited in Rev. R. Lang, CMS, letter to BFBS, n.d., who cites Maunsell's letter to CMS (BFBS Archives, Editorial Subcommittee Minutes, vol.16, p.60)
33 John Rout, letter to J. Knolleke, 17 November 1856 and Maunsell, letter to T. B. Bergne, Waikato River, 25 September 1862 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.1, p.77 and vol.3, 1863-4, P.19).
37 Maunsell, letter to BFBS, 30 January  (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.20. p.59)
38 Maunsell, letter to A. Reid, 26 February 1885 (Maunsell Papers).
39 'N.T. Maori Revision, 16 May 1884', with notes from Matthew to Romans, until June 1884 (Maunsell Papers; Lawry, letters to BFBS, 7 December  and 2 January 1886 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.21, p.56 and p.116).
40 Abraham, letters to BFBS, 6 November  and 30 November ; Mrs Carleton, letter to BFBS, 19 December ; Bishop Abraham, letter to BFBS, 22 December 1885 and Mrs Carleton, letter to BFBS, 8 January 1886 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.20, p.340 ; vol.21, p.34 and p.82).
48 Bishop of Waiapu, letter to Dr. Wright, 14 April 1896 (BFBS Archives, Extracts From Letters, vol.34, p.265).
51 Rev. F. H. Spencer, responding to a letter of H. A. Baynes, Australia, 17 July 1903; to a letter of Bishop Leonard Williams, 22 December 1903; and Spencer to BFBS, 24 December 1903 (BFBS Archives, Editorial Committee, Index of Resolutions, meetings of 2 September 1903 and 24 February 1904, Cambridge University Library).
55 See Bible translation and the spread of the church: The last 200 years, ed. by Philip C. Stine (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991).