derive our knowledge of the original texts. Translations of the Scriptures
were made at an early date; some at an earlier date than that of the
oldest manuscripts now extant. Two of these were referred to in the first
lecture; namely, the old Latin and the old Syriac, both of which belong to
the second century, and give, therefore, most important testimony as to
the words of Scripture at that early period. Next to these in point of age
may be placed the two Egyptian versions, one in the language of Lower
Egypt, and called the Memphitic (or Coptic), and the other in that of
Upper Egypt, and called the Thebaic (or Sahidic). In the opinion of
competent judges, some portions, at least, of the Scriptures must have
been translated into these dialects before the close of the second
century; in their completed form these versions may be referred to the
earlier part of the third century. A Gothic version of the Scriptures was
made in the fourth century by Ulphilas, who was Bishop of the Moeso-Goths
348-388; and of this some valuable portions are still extant. Two other
ancient versions, the Armenian (cent. 5), and the Æthiopic (cents. 6 and
7), though of inferior importance, are not without value. During recent
years a large amount of labour has been spent, first, in securing as
accurate a knowledge as possible of the text of these various versions,
and then in investigating the evidence they supply respecting the original
texts from which they were severally made. From this source much valuable
material has been obtained supplementary to that furnished by Biblical
manuscripts.
The works of early Christian writers contain, as might be expected, large
quotations of Scripture passages. Some of these works are elaborate
expositions of various books of the Old and New Testament, and others are
controversial writings in which there is a frequent necessity for
appealing to Scriptural authorities. Although not a few of the writings of
the earliest Christian authors have perished, we have still a
considerable collection of writings belonging to the second and third
centuries, whose pages supply us with valuable evidence concerning the
text of the New Testament, of a date earlier than the oldest of our
manuscripts. We have also a still larger collection of writings belonging
to the same age as that of our most ancient manuscripts, and from them are
able to gather a further mass of testimony in confirmation or correction
of that given by these venerable documents.
The writings of Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen,
belonging to the latter part of the second century, and the beginning of
the third, contain a large body of quotations from the Gospels and
Epistles. The works of Origen alone may, with scarcely any exaggeration,
be said to be equivalent to an additional manuscript of the New Testament.
He died about A.D. 253 or 254, and during his entire life gave himself
with a most indomitable perseverance to Biblical studies. In addition to
an elaborate revision of the Greek text of the Septuagint, upon which he
spent eight and twenty years, but of which unhappily some fragments only
have reached us, he composed expositions or homilies upon the larger part
of the books of the Old and New Testaments. Of these some very
considerable portions have come down to us, and as his expositions on the
Old Testament abound in quotations from the New, the number of passages
from the latter found in his writings is very large.
Of writers belonging to the fourth century we have commentaries in Greek
by Chrysostom and Didymus, and in Latin by Hilary of Rome, and Jerome;
and, in addition, extensive theological treatises, involving numerous
appeals to the Scriptures, by Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Epiphanius, and
the two Gregorys.
In the following century we have the Greek commentaries of Theodore of
Mopsuestia and Theodoret; the commentary of Pelagius on the Epistles of
Paul; and the voluminous writings of Augustine, including commentaries on
the Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount, John’s Gospel and Epistles, and
Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, together with a large number
of Homilies on various parts of Scripture. These numerous writings form a
mine of wealth to the Biblical critic; but it is a mine that has only been
diligently worked in comparatively recent years. Much wearisome toil has
been necessary in bringing to light its treasures, and these were either
overlooked or neglected by the earlier editors of the Greek New Testament.
It may perhaps be thought that, inasmuch as the documents from which these
Christian writings are obtained are themselves of a later date, the
testimony they give to the text of Scripture is of no higher worth than
that of Biblical manuscripts of the same age. The scribes, it may be said,
would be influenced by the form of text then current, and in copying these
writings would naturally, when Scripture quotations occurred, give them in
the form with which they were familiar. To some extent this may have been
the case, and the testimony of these writings is of less weight when they
simply reflect the form of text which prevailed at the date when they were
copied. But then, on the other hand, their testimony is for the same
reason proportionally the stronger whenever they do not agree with the
current form, but give a different reading. Moreover it must be remembered
that in many cases the authors comment minutely upon the Scripture text,
and that here their testimony is quite unaffected by any tendency on the
part of the copyist to use a familiar form, the comment itself showing
beyond all doubt what was the form of the text which the author was
expounding. In all such places the testimony of these early writers is
especially valuable.
From this mere outline of the manifold researches which scholars have made
during the years that have passed since the Revision of 1611 was issued,
some notion may be gathered of the extent to which our resources for the
satisfactory determination of the sacred text have been multiplied. It
will hence be seen how great is the confidence with which we are thereby
enabled to affirm the verbal correctness of that far larger portion of the
text in which our numerous and varied authorities are all agreed, and with
what confidence also we can place our finger upon certain blemishes, and
say that here an error has crept in through the inadvertence, or
carelessness, or ignorance of the transcriber. If then there were no other
reasons for the revision of the English Bible, this alone would be a
sufficient ground for it. When it is in the power of any one to say that
there are passages in our common Bibles which, as there given, are found
in no Greek manuscript whatever, as is the case in Acts ix., the latter
part of verse 5, and the beginning of verse 6; 1 Peter iii. 20; Heb. xi.
13; and Rev. ii. 20; and when there are other passages, respecting which
the evidence is greatly preponderating, that they ought to have no place
in the text, as is the case with Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvii. 21; Matt.
xxiii. 35 (last clause); Mark xv. 28; Luke xi. 2, 4 (the last clause of
each verse); John v. 3 (last clause), and 4; Acts viii. 37; Acts xv. 34;
Acts xxviii. 29; Rom. xi. 6 (last clause); 1 Cor. vi. 20 (last clause); 1
Cor. x. 28 (last clause); Gal. iii. 1 (second clause); Heb. xii. 20; and 1
John v., from “in heaven,” verse 7, to “in earth,” verse 8. When these
things can be said, and can be truly said, then all true lovers of the
Bible will earnestly demand that they be forthwith removed.
LECTURE VIII.
_THE PREPARATIONS FOR FURTHER REVISION MADE DURING THE PAST TWO
CENTURIES._
It has not been left to the present generation to be the first to
recognize the force of the various considerations presented in the
previous lectures. The duty of providing for a further revision of the
English Bible has been handed down as a solemn trust from generation to
generation. Every new discovery made of Biblical manuscripts, and every
fresh field of research opened up, has at once made the need of revision
more apparent, and given intensity to the desire that it should be
undertaken; and, in their turn, this quickened desire and this increase of
material have prompted to renewed efforts in obtaining all possible
subsidiary helps. In this way it has come to pass that the whole period
which has elapsed since the publication of the Revision of 1611 has been
in effect a time of preparation for another and further revision, and
here, as elsewhere, the divine law of human discipline has been verified,
that every work accomplished is but the starting-point for fresh
endeavours.
In this work of preparation four distinct stages may be clearly traced:
the first, that of unfriendly criticism; the second, that of premature
attempts at correction; the third, that of diligent research and patient
investigation; and the fourth, that of widespread conviction of the
desirableness of further revision, and the discussion of the plans by
which it may best be accomplished.
From the very first the new version had to undergo an ordeal of
criticism, springing sometimes from personal pique, sometimes from party
prejudice, sometimes from a one-sided attachment to a favourite doctrine,
the evidence for which seemed to be obscured by the rendering given to
certain passages. Almost immediately upon the publication of the volume, a
violent attack was made upon it by Hugh Broughton, who, though a man of
immense erudition, and one of the best Hebraists of the day, was of so
overbearing a temper that his offer to aid in the revision had been
declined. Broughton declared that the version was so ill done that it bred
in him a sadness which would grieve him whilst he breathed. “Tell his
Majesty,” he passionately said, “that I had rather be rent in pieces with
wild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged on
poor churches.”
In the sharp controversies of the Commonwealth period the slight
indications given by the version of a certain ecclesiastical bias were
unduly exaggerated. Charges of a direct prelatic influence were freely
made, and various rumours were circulated, as if upon good authority, that
Archbishop Bancroft had taken upon himself to introduce alterations in
opposition to the judgment, and even the protest of the translators.
Influenced probably by the feeling thus awakened, though not sharing it,
Dr. John Lightfoot, in a sermon preached before the Long Parliament on
August 26th, 1645,[92] expressed the hope that they would find some time
among their serious employments to think of a “review and survey of the
translation of the Bible.” “And certainly,” he added, “it would not be the
least advantage that you might do to the three nations, if they, by your
care and means, might come to understand the proper and genuine reading of
the Scriptures by an exact, vigorous, and lively translation.”
In 1653 the charge that the New Testament “had been looked over by some
Prelates, to bring it to speak the Prelatical language,” was formally
repeated in the preamble of a Bill brought before the Long Parliament,
which proposed the appointment of a committee “to search and observe
wherein that last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates or
printers or others.”[93] In 1659 a folio volume of 805 pages, entitled,
“An Essay toward the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the
Bible, or a Proof by many instances that the last Translation of the Bible
into English may be improved,” was published by Dr. Robert Gell, “Minister
of the Parish of St. Mary, Alder-Mary, London.” Dr. Gell was a man who
stoutly maintained the doctrine that it is “possible and attainable
through the grace of God and His Holy Spirit that men may be without sin,”
and his book is an elaborate attempt to show that this doctrine “was
frequently delivered in holy Scripture, though industriously obscured by
our translators.” An attack of another kind was made a quarter of a
century later, by a Roman Catholic writer named Thomas Ward, who,
repeating many of the charges made against the earlier English versions by
Gregory Martin, one of the authors of the Rhemish version, charged the
translators with corrupting the Holy Scriptures by false and partial
translations, for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage in the
controversy with the Church of Rome.[94]
These hostile criticisms, though made in a spirit of partisanship and
marred by much uncharitableness and unfairness, were nevertheless of
service. They forced upon all, though in a rude and unpleasant way, the
recognition of the fact that the new version, with all its excellences,
was still the work of fallible men; and despite their passion and their
hard words, they did undoubtedly hit some blots that here and there
disfigured the sacred page. To this extent they served to prepare the way
for further revision.
A second stage in the process of preparation is seen in the various
attempts which have been made to produce a version which should remove
acknowledged blemishes, and more faithfully convey the meaning of the holy
Word. Some of these have been based upon a well-conceived plan, and have
sought to accomplish the desired end by the united efforts of a band of
fellow-labourers; others have been the work of individual scholars, and
were for the most part of a tentative character, intended simply to show
what ought to be attempted, and how it might be done; others, again, have
been the unwise labours of men who worked upon false principles, and with
insufficient knowledge; but all have in their own way helped on the work,
the former two classes by their felicitous renderings of some passages,
and the light they have thrown upon the meaning of others, and the last
mentioned class by their clear demonstration of what a translation of the
Scriptures ought certainly not to be.
The first[95] serious attempt at a further revision was made by the Rev.
Henry Jessey, M.A., pastor of that greatly persecuted Congregational
Church in Southwark, which had been gathered by Henry Jacob in 1616. In
the time of the Commonwealth proposals were made by Jessey, that “godly
and able men” should be appointed by “public authority” “to review and
amend the defects in our translation.” Pending their appointment, he set
himself to secure the co-operation of a number of learned men, at home and
abroad, writing to them in the following fashion: “There being a strange
desire in many that love the truth, to have a more pure, proper
translation of the originals than hitherto; and I being moved and inclined
to it, and desirous to promote it with all possible speed and exactness,
do make my request (now in my actual entrance on Genesis) that as you love
the truth as it is in Jesus, and the edification of saints, you with
others (in like manner solicited), will take share and do each a part in
the work, which being finished will be fruit to your account.” Of the
names of his fellow-workers the only one recorded is that of Mr. John Row,
Hebrew professor at Aberdeen, “who took exceeding pains herein,” and who
drew up the scheme in accordance with which the work was carried on.
Jessey’s proposal received at least so much of support from “public
authority,” that he was one of the committee whose appointment was
recommended to the House of Commons in 1653. The result is thus quaintly
told by Jessey’s biographer:[96] “Thus thorow his perswasions many persons
excelling in knowledge, integrity, and holiness, did buckle to this great
Worke of bettering the Translation of the Bible, but their names are
thought fit at present to be concealed to prevent undue Reflections upon
their persons; but may come to light (if that work shall ever come to be
made publick), and unto each of them was one particular book or more
allotted, according as they had leisure, or as the bent of their Genius,
advantages of Books or Studies lay, which when supervised by all the rest,
dayes of assembling together were to have been set apart, to seek the Lord
for His further direction, and for conference with each other touching the
matter then under consideration. In process of time this whole work was
almost compleated, and stayed for nothing but the appointment of
Commissioners to examine it, and warrant its publication.” The death of
Cromwell, and the political events which followed, prevented the
realization of Jessey’s hopes. It had been with him the work of many years
of his life, and his soul was so engaged in it that he frequently uttered
the prayer, “O that I might see this done before I die.”
The ecclesiastical events arising out of the Act of Uniformity (1662) will
sufficiently account for the absence of any efforts of revision during the
latter part of the seventeenth century. In the earlier part of the
following century there appeared one of those ill-advised attempts, whose
chief use is to serve as a beacon of warning, in the Greek and English New
Testament, published A.D. 1729, by W. Mace, M.D.[97] In his translation
this author allowed himself to employ an unpleasantly free style of
rendering, and deemed it fitting to substitute the colloquial style of the
day for the dignified simplicity of the version he undertook to amend.
Towards the latter part of the century a considerable number of well-meant
endeavours at revision were made by devout and scholarly men.
In 1764 “A new and literal Translation of the Old and New Testament, with
notes, critical and explanatory,” was published by Anthony Purver, a
member of the Society of Friends.
In 1770 there was issued “The New Testament, or New Covenant of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek according to the
present idiom of the English tongue, with notes and references,” by John
Worsley, of Hertford, whose aim, as stated in his preface, was to bring
his translation nearer to the original, and “to make the present form of
expression more suitable to our present language,” adding, with a laudable
desire to repudiate all sympathy with those who forced the Scripture to
say what, according to their own fancies, it ought to say, “I have no
design to countenance any particular opinions or sentiments. I have
weighed, as it were, every word in a balance, even to the minutest
particle, begging the gracious aid of the Divine Spirit to lead me into
the true and proper meaning, that I might give a just and exact
translation of this great and precious charter of man’s salvation.”[98]
In 1781 Gilbert Wakefield, late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, but
then classical tutor of the Warrington Academy, published “a new
translation of the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,
offered to the public as a specimen of an intended version of the whole
New Testament, with a preface containing a brief account of the Author’s
plan.” This was followed in 1782 by a new translation of the Gospel of
Matthew, and in 1791 by a translation of the whole of the New
Testament.[99]
In 1786 a Roman Catholic clergyman (the Rev. Alexander Geddes, LL.D.)
issued a prospectus of “a New Translation of the Holy Bible from corrected
texts of the originals, compared with the Ancient Versions.” This
prospectus was very favourably received by many of the leading Biblical
scholars of the day, especially by the great Hebraist, Dr. Benjamin
Kennicott, Canon of Christchurch, and by Dr. Robert Lowth, Bishop of
London, and was followed in 1788 by formal proposals for printing the book
by subscription. The first volume appeared in 1792, with the title “The
Holy Bible, or the Books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians;
otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully
translated from corrected texts of the Originals, with various readings,
explanatory notes, and critical remarks.” Two other volumes were
afterwards published; but the death of the author, in 1801, prevented the
completion of the work.[100]
In 1796 Dr. William Newcome, Archbishop of Armagh, published “An attempt
towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the
New Covenant of Jesus Christ; and towards illustrating the sense by
philological and explanatory notes.”
Passing over some other works less worthy of notice, a scholarly attempt
was made in 1836 by Grenville Penn to introduce into the English version
some of the results which had then been attained by the critical
examination of ancient authorities. This work bore the title, “The Book of
the New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being a critical
revision of the text and translation of the English version of the New
Testament, with the aid of most ancient manuscripts, unknown to the age in
which that version was last put forth by authority.”
It is not to be supposed that any of these translations were published
with the expectation of securing so large a measure of favour as to
supersede the current version. Their primary purpose was to aid the
private study of the Bible; but they have been of great service also in
keeping the general question of revision before the notice of thoughtful
persons, and they have each in their measure contributed to a more exact
knowledge of the Scriptures.
The failure of the earlier of these attempts at revision arose in part
from the imperfect state of the texts upon which they were based. This
soon became obvious, and Biblical scholars saw that for some time to come
their labours must be spent rather in laying the foundation for a future
revision than in attempting it themselves, and this in three distinct
departments. The first of these was the collection, as described in the
last lecture, of the material supplied by ancient manuscripts, and by
early versions and quotations. In this department a long succession of
faithful men have laboured, amongst whom may be mentioned Brian Walton,
who in 1657 published his famous Polyglot Bible in six folio volumes,
giving in addition to the original Hebrew and Greek, the Samaritan
Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Æthiopic, and Persian
versions; Dr. John Mill, whose New Testament was published in 1770, and of
whom it has been justly said that “his services to Bible criticism surpass
in extent and value those rendered by any other except one or two men yet
living;”[101] Dr. Richard Bentley, who, having himself collated the
Alexandrine and other ancient MSS., and by various agencies amassed a
large store of critical material, published in 1720 his “Proposals for
Printing” revised texts both of the Greek New Testament and the Latin
Vulgate; Dr. Kennicott, who in 1760 aroused public attention to the
importance of collating all Hebrew MSS. made before the invention of
printing, and who personally, or through the aid of others, collated more
than six hundred Hebrew MSS., and sixteen MSS. of the Samaritan
Pentateuch; John Bernard de Rossi, professor of Oriental languages in the
University of Parma, who in 1784-8 published the results of the collation
of seven hundred and thirty-one MSS., and of three hundred editions of the
Hebrew Scriptures; and, to come to more recent times, Dr. Constantine
Tischendorf, Dr. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, and Dr. Frederick Henry
Scrivener, whose names are to be held in the highest honour, as of men who
have rendered invaluable service to their own and future generations in
the exhausting and self-denying work of the collation of Biblical MSS.,
and through whose care and accuracy the means of obtaining an exact
knowledge of a large number of most precious documents have been placed
within easy reach of all.
The second department of labour is the application of the material thus
collected to the correction of the text. Here again a vast amount of
patient work has been done, and out of the successive labours of a long
series of critics much valuable experience has been gained and the best
methods gradually learnt. Amongst those who have thus laboured in the
criticism of the text of the New Testament may be mentioned the names of
Bengel, Wettstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford,
Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort; and of that of the Old Testament, Buxtorf,
Leusden, Van der Hooght, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, and Jahn.