slain.” The ordinary reader naturally takes the “wicked hands” to be the
hands of the Jews, whereas the reference is to the Romans, through whose
agency the Jews brought about the crucifixion of Christ, “and by the hands
of lawless men, ye crucified and slew.” Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the
Genevan, the Bishops, and the Rheims, all render this clause correctly.
Acts xi. 17. “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as _he did_
unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is incorrect, and
suggests a false contrast between “us” and “them,” as if the latter were
not believers. Faith in Christ is the ground upon which, in the case of
both parties, the gifts referred to were received. The verse is thus given
by Tyndale: “For as moche then as God gave them lyke gyftes, as he dyd
unto vs when we beleved on the Lorde Iesus Christ.”
Acts xxvi. 23. “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first
that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and
to the Gentiles.” This both needlessly suggests a difficulty to many
readers, and altogether conceals one main point of the passage; namely,
that the resurrection of Christ was the great source from which
illumination would come both to Jews and to Gentiles, “and that He first
by _His_ resurrection from the dead should proclaim light to the people
and to the Gentiles.”
Rom. ix. 3. “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my
brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Such a wish it is impossible
that the Apostle could have entertained. His words are the expression of
his strong affection for his fellow-countrymen. “I could have wished,”
&c.; _i.e._ if such a wish had been right or possible.
Rom. xiii. 11. “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to
awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we
believed.” This is ambiguous English, and though a very careful reader
might gather the true sense from this rendering, it is very liable to be
taken as if meaning that our salvation is nearer than we anticipated; nor
is the ambiguity removed by the Genevan, which reads, “nearer than when we
believed it.” The reference is to the time of their first exercise of
faith in Christ, “nearer than when we _first_ believed.”
1 Cor. i. 21. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe.” This rendering has been a fertile source of error, as if
preaching was in itself, or as viewed by the Corinthians, an inappropriate
means for the diffusion of the Gospel, a thought altogether at variance
with the tone of the context, and with the facts of history. The Greeks
were, of all the peoples of antiquity, the least disposed to think lightly
of oratory, and the whole tenor of the passage shows that their tendency
was to overrate, not underrate, the power of speech. What was foolishness
to them was not the act of preaching, but the doctrine preached--salvation
through a crucified Christ. The Rheims here clearly enough gives the true
sense, “it pleased God by the folishnes of the preaching to saue them that
beleeue.”
1 Cor. ix. 5. “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well
as other apostles?” This mode of speech implies that some only of the
other apostles were married. What the Greek states is that all or most of
them were. Here again the Rheims correctly renders, “as also the rest of
the Apostles.”
2 Cor. v. 14. “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were
all dead,” thus seeming to imply that the death of Christ upon the cross
is a proof that all men were in a state of spiritual death; whereas the
conclusion which the Apostle draws from the death of Christ is, that all
who truly believe in Him die to their old fleshly sinful life, “because
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died.”
Eph. iii 10. “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in
heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.”
It would only be after much careful consideration that the reader of these
words would discover that they cannot mean that the manifold wisdom of God
is to be known _by_ the Church. What the Apostle really states is, that it
was in the Divine purpose that through the Church the manifold wisdom of
God was to be made known to the angelic powers. Of all the ancient
versions the Rheims, though here, as usual, disfigured by its offensive
Latinisms, most clearly expresses the sense of the verse; its rendering
is, “that the manifold wisdom of God may be notified to the Princes and
Potentates in the celestials by the Church.”
Phil. iv. 3. “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women
which laboured with me in the gospel.” This leaves it quite uncertain who
are the women referred to, whereas in the original it is plain that they
are the two women previously referred to, Euodia, and Syntyche; and the
reason why it is urged that assistance should be given to them, is that
they had bravely shared with Paul in the toil and conflict of the
Christian service. “Help them, for they have laboured with me in the
gospel.”
1 Tim. iv. 15. “Meditate upon these things.” This wholly fails to express
the apostle’s meaning. His exhortation goes beyond the region of thought;
it passes into the sphere of active life, and he urges Timothy to give
himself to the diligent practice of the several departments of labour
previously referred to. Of the old translators, Tyndale gives it
correctly, “These thynges exercyse.”
1 Tim. vi. 2. “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise
_them_, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” The last clause
of this passage has, in all probability, grievously puzzled many a reader;
but with the fuller knowledge of the Greek syntax now possessed, all
obscurity passes away. No scholar would now hesitate in rendering, “do
them service because they who partake of the benefit are faithful and
beloved.”[75]
1 Tim. vi. 5. “Supposing that gain is godliness.” Here again an
unnecessary difficulty is introduced; for it is hard to see how any sane
person could consider “gain” to be “godliness.” On the other hand, it is
unhappily no uncommon experience to meet with persons who treat religion
as a means of worldly advantage, and it is to such the Apostle refers. The
correct rendering is, “supposing that godliness is gain.”[76]
Heb. iv. 2. “For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them,” a
rendering which at once raises the objection that “the Gospel,” in the
sense which ordinary readers attach to the term, was not preached to the
Israelites in the wilderness; nor does any reference to “the Gospel” occur
in the immediate context, but simply to the promise of entering into a
rest. The plain sense of the passage is, “unto us were good tidings
preached as well as unto them.”
Heb. viii. 5. “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”
The introduction of the preposition “unto” almost entirely obliterates the
meaning of the clause; namely, that the Mosaic priesthood were the
ministers, not of the true sanctuary, but of that which is only its copy
and shadow. The Rheims correctly renders, “that serve the examplar and
shadow of heavenly things.”
Heb. xiii. 7, 8. “Whose faith follow, considering the end of their
conversation: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.”
Here there is a double error; first, the connection of the last clause
with the preceding, as if it were intended to affirm that Christ was the
end of the conversation of their faithful pastors; and secondly, the wrong
sense thus given to the word “end,” which here denotes the “outcome” or
issue. The Hebrew Christians are urged to imitate the faith of their
pastors, considering the blessed issue of their Christian cause. Then
follows, as an independent statement, the assertion of the
unchangeableness of Christ, which, though not altogether disconnected in
thought with what precedes, stands in still closer connection with what
follows: “Considering the issue of their way of life, imitate their faith.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.”
Such are some of the passages from which it may be said, that through the
emphatic unanimity of Biblical scholars all obscurity and doubt have been
removed. Their true meaning may now be affirmed with a confidence that
closely borders upon moral certainty. Through numerous commentaries and
other expository works, these results of scholarship are made widely
known, and they whose duty it is to expound these passages to others are
constrained to point out the imperfection that attaches to the renderings
given in the English Bible now ordinarily used. It is obviously a most
undesirable thing that the teacher or preacher should be placed under such
a necessity. It is not at all times easy so to discharge the duty as that
he shall give no offence even to educated hearers; while the simple-minded
and unlearned are painfully perplexed; and, unprepared as they are to
estimate the limits of possible error, seem to themselves to be launched
upon a boundless sea of uncertainty. Revision, therefore, becomes
imperative, both for the sake of removing acknowledged blemishes, and also
for reassuring the anxious that they are trusting to a faithful guide, and
for showing to them how little, comparatively, there is in their beloved
Book that needs to be changed.
LECTURE VII.
_ON THE ORIGINAL TEXTS, AS KNOWN IN 1611, AND AS NOW KNOWN._
Another, and distinct, class of reasons for the further revision of the
English Bible, arises from the more abundant material now possessed for
the determination of the original text of Scripture than was within the
reach of the Revisers of 1611.
Even if these honoured men had perfectly fulfilled their work, and had
never erred in their interpretation of the sacred books, the result of
their labours would still be open to correction because of the less
perfect form of the texts which they set themselves to translate. The
exact words used by the inspired writers are, as was stated in the first
lecture, not now to be found in any one book or manuscript. They have to
be gathered from varied sources, by long and careful labour, demanding
much skill and learning. These sources, moreover, are so numerous that the
investigation of them can be accomplished only by a large division of
labour, no one life being long enough for the task, and no one scholar
having knowledge enough to complete it alone. Nevertheless, it is well
that our sources are thus extensive. Had one copy only of the books of the
Old and New Testament come down to us, then, indeed, we should have been
freed from the necessity of this manifold and laborious research, but
unless this were the original copy itself, we should have had no means
whereby to detect and to remove the errors which had crept in from the
human imperfections of the transcribers. And though none of these errata
might in any serious degree have affected the great truths which the Bible
conveys to us, or have diminished our estimate of its surpassing worth,
they would have been as blots upon its pages which our love and reverence
for it would long to see removed. The greater the number and variety of
our resources, the greater is our ability, by the examination and
comparison of their differences, to remove these blemishes; and the
greater also is the confidence we are able to feel in the absolute
correctness of those far more numerous and extensive passages in which our
authorities agree. And hence, though the toil imposed upon us is so
largely multiplied thereby, we cannot but rejoice in the number and extent
of our authorities, and we gather therefrom a fresh illustration of the
saying, that “in all labour there is profit.”
The sources, whence our knowledge of the original texts is chiefly
derived, are three in number: (1) Manuscripts containing one or more of
the books of Scripture; (2) Ancient Versions of the Bible; and (3)
Quotations of Scriptural passages found in the works of early Christian
writers.
* * * * *
Respecting our Manuscript Authorities, the first fact claiming emphatic
notice is, that while in the case of the classic poets, philosophers and
historians, the extant manuscript copies are numbered by tens and
sometimes even by units, those of the Scriptures are numbered by hundreds.
Of the New Testament alone nearly eighteen hundred manuscripts have been
catalogued and more or less carefully examined. Of these 685 are
manuscripts of the Gospels, 248 contain the Acts and Catholic Epistles,
298 the Pauline Epistles, and 110 the Apocalypse; 428 are Lectionaries or
service books of the Greek church, 347 of which contain passages from the
Gospels and 81 passages from the Acts and the Epistles. Thus while our
knowledge of the interesting narratives of Herodotus is dependent upon
five or six authorities only, and the history of Livy upon eight or nine
only (and none of these contain the whole even of the portions
extant),[77] our knowledge of the life and words of our Lord is drawn from
over a thousand manuscript authorities, and of which the larger part
contain the whole of the four Gospels.
In antiquity again the manuscripts of the New Testament far surpass those
of classical authors. Few, if any, of the latter are older than the ninth
or tenth century, while of the former we have copies belonging to the
fourth and fifth centuries. The oldest manuscripts are written in capital
letters, and on this account are called uncial[78] manuscripts, or briefly
uncials. Later manuscripts are written in a smaller character, and in a
style approaching to what we call a running hand, and are hence named
cursives. Of uncial manuscripts, containing portions of the New Testament,
one hundred and fifty-eight have been examined and catalogued. Some of the
most valuable of these have been published under the superintendence of
careful editors. Others have been thoroughly examined, and their
variations so faithfully noted and recorded, that a private student is,
for most practical purposes, placed in the same position as the possessor
of the manuscript itself. This work is technically described as
_collation_, and the amount of painstaking labour spent upon the collation
of Biblical manuscripts during the past two hundred years, and especially
in the last forty or fifty years, is simply enormous. To one who has never
examined a document written many centuries ago it is difficult to convey
any adequate notion of the amount of time and labour involved in the
collation even of a single manuscript. The unusual and varying forms of
the letters, the indistinctness of the characters, the various
contractions employed by the scribe, and, as is the case with our most
ancient documents, the non-separation of word from word, and the absence
of stops, render the mere task of deciphering the manuscript very
difficult and painfully wearying to the eyes.[79] Much watchful attention
is also demanded, as well as a good knowledge of the language, in making
the proper separation of the words, and in judging aright of any
peculiarities of spelling that may attach to the writer. In making the
collation of any Biblical manuscript--say of the New Testament--the course
generally pursued is as follows: The collator procures a printed copy of
the Greek text, commonly of some well-known edition, and in the margin of
this he marks all the variations of the manuscripts from the printed text
before him, whether of omission, addition, or otherwise, including even
variations in spelling. He also marks carefully where each line and page
of the manuscript begins and ends, what corrections or alterations have
been made in it, whether these were made by the original writer or by a
later hand; and where several handwritings may be detected, he specifies
and distinguishes these. All this is done with so much minuteness that it
would be possible for the collator to reproduce the original manuscript in
every respect save in the shape of the letters and the appearance of the
parchment or paper.
Of the uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the most ancient and
important are the SINAITIC,[80] written in the fourth century, and now
deposited in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg; the VATICAN,[81]
also of the fourth century, and preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome;
the ALEXANDRINE,[82] of the fifth century, now in the British Museum; the
EPHRAEM CODEX,[83] of the fifth century, in the National Library at Paris;
BEZA’S CODEX,[84] of the sixth century, in the University Library,
Cambridge; and the CLAROMONTANE,[85] also of the sixth century, which
formerly belonged to Beza, but is now in the National Library at Paris. As
will be seen presently, only two of these most ancient manuscripts were
available for the preparation of the text from which the translators of
1611 made their revision. The Alexandrine was not brought to light until
1628, when it was presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of
Constantinople. Although the Ephraem Codex was brought to Europe in the
early part of the sixteenth century, it was not known to contain a portion
of the New Testament until towards the close of the seventeenth century,
and was not collated until the year 1716. The Sinaitic was discovered by
Dr. Tischendorf, in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, so
recently as February 4th, 1859. And the Vatican, though deposited in the
Library at Rome in the fifteenth century, was, during a long time, so
jealously guarded by the Roman authorities, that little use could be made
of it. Now, however, all these six important manuscripts have been edited
and published, some in the ordinary style of printing, and some in _quasi
fac-simile_. At the present time, by the application of the processes of
photography, an exact copy of the Alexandrine is in course of preparation,
and the New Testament portion has been successfully completed.
In these and other ways, by the laborious efforts of many English and
Continental scholars, an immense amount of material for the determination
of the sacred text has been gathered together and safely garnered; and
knowledge which aforetime could be attained only by slow and wearisome
effort, by many long journeys to distant places, and by much personal
search amongst the books and papers stored away in national and other
libraries, can now be attained with comparative ease by the solitary
student in his study. At the time when King James’s translators entered
upon their work a small fraction only of this mass of material was
available, and even that fraction was but imperfectly used. The means were
not then possessed for correctly judging of the relative value of the
several documents, nor had experience given the skill to discriminate
wisely between varying testimony.
The translators of 1611 have left on record no statement respecting the
Greek text from which they translated, but as far as can be gathered from
internal evidence they contented themselves with accepting the forms of it
which they found ready at hand. Of these the two then held in highest
repute were those connected with the names of Theodore Beza and Robert
Stephen. These, in their turn, were based upon the two primary editions of
the printed text, the Complutensian and Erasmus’s, editions which were
made quite independently of each other. The Complutensian was the first
printed, though not the first published.[86] It formed the fifth volume of
the splendid Polyglot prepared under the munificent patronage of Cardinal
Ximenes, at Alcala, in Spain, from the Latin name of which city
(Complutum) it derives its designation, and was completed January 10th,
1514. It is not now known from what manuscripts the text of this edition
was derived, but it may be confidently affirmed that none of our most
ancient authorities were used. They were probably not many in number, and
were all what in this connection is termed modern; that is to say, not
earlier than the tenth century. The first _published_ edition of the
Greek New Testament was that edited by the celebrated Erasmus, and sent
forth from the press of Froben, in Basle, February 24th, 1516. This was
derived from six manuscripts, five of which are now in the public library
of Basle, and one[87] in the library of the Prince of
Oettingen-Wallerstein. Of these one, and the most valuable, contained the
whole of the New Testament except the Apocalypse, but of this Erasmus made
but little use. Of the rest, one contained the Gospels only, two the Acts
and the Epistles only, one the Epistles of Paul only, and one the
Apocalypse only. It will thus be seen that in the Gospels the text given
by Erasmus rested almost entirely upon the authority of a single
manuscript; in the Acts and Catholic Epistles upon that of two only; in
the Epistles of Paul upon three; and in the Apocalypse upon one only, and
that an imperfect one. The last six verses were wanting, and these Erasmus
supplied by translating them into Greek from the Latin of the Vulgate. The
work too was hastily done. The proposal to undertake it was made to
Erasmus April 17th, 1515, so that less than ten months were given to the
preparation of the volume, and this, too, at a time when Erasmus was
busied with other engagements; an unseemly haste that we may probably
ascribe to the publishers’ eager desire to get the start of the
Complutensian. Revised editions were published in 1519 and 1522, in the
preparation of which the aid of a few additional manuscripts was obtained.
These, again, were further revised by the aid of the Complutensian, which
then became available, in an edition which Erasmus published in 1527.
The next stage in the history of the printed text of the Greek New
Testament is marked by the publication at Paris, in 1550, of the handsome
folio of the celebrated and learned printer, Robert Stephen.[88] He tells
us in his preface that in the preparation of this edition he made use of
the Complutensian and of fifteen manuscripts. Two of these were ancient,
one that is now known as Beza’s Codex, which had been collated for him by
a friend in Italy, and another, a manuscript in the National Library of
Paris, written in the eighth or ninth century, and containing the four
Gospels;[89] the rest were modern, and all were but imperfectly
collated.[90]
After the death of Robert Stephen (1559)[91] the work of revision was
carried on by Theodore Beza, who, like the former, had embraced the
Protestant cause, and like him also had found a home in Geneva. His first
edition was published in this city in 1565, a second in 1582, a third in
1589, and a fourth in 1598. In the preparation of these he had in his
possession the collations made for Robert Stephen, and, in addition, the
ancient manuscript of the Gospels and Acts which now bears his name; and
for the Pauline Epistles, the equally ancient Claromontane. Beza’s
strength, however, lay rather in the interpretation, than in the
criticism, of the text, and he made but a slight use of the materials
within his reach.
It will thus be seen how small, comparatively, was the manuscript
authority for the text used by King James’s translators. In the main they
follow the text of Beza; sometimes, however, they give the preference to
Stephen’s; in some few places they differ from both. By what principles
they were guided in their choice we do not know. They do not appear to
have set on foot any independent examination of authorities, and when they
forsake their two guides they commonly follow in the wake of some of the
earlier English versions.