Part 6

Matt. xv. 3. “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” The commandment of God might indeed be transgressed by compliance with the traditions of men, but this is not the meaning of our Lord’s words. The Pharisees had asked why the disciples did not observe the traditions of the elders respecting washing. Our Lord justifies them by calling attention to the wrong doing of those who so exalted these outward observations, in themselves mere matters of indifference, as on their account to make void the commandments of God. “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”[74]

Mark vi. 20. “For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him.” This erroneous rendering has come down through Tyndale, the Great Bible, and the Genevan, the last of these, however, giving it in the less obscure form, “and did him reverence.” The passage is rightly given by Wycliffe, “and kept him;” _i.e._ kept him in safety.

Luke i. 59. “And they called him Zacharias.” The form employed in the Greek expresses that the action here spoken of was attempted only, not completed, “they would have called him Zacharias.”

Luke xxi. 19. “In your patience possess ye your souls,” a translation which altogether misses the meaning. The clause is not an exhortation to the maintenance of a calm composure in trouble, but is an exhortation to the acquirement of a higher and nobler life through the brave endurance of suffering. “In your patience win ye your lives.” In the better texts this is given in the form of an assurance: “In your patience ye shall win your lives.”

Luke xxiii. 15. “No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.” Words unto which an intelligible sense can be put only by straining them to mean that nothing had been done to our Lord to show that in the judgment of Herod He was worthy of death. All obscurity is removed by the more faithful rendering, “nothing worthy of death hath been done by him.”

John iv. 27. “And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman.” The surprise of the disciples was not occasioned by the fact that our Lord was conversing with this particular woman; they were surprised that He should talk with any woman. The correct rendering is, as given by the Rheims, “and they marueiled that he talked with a woman.”

John v. 35. “He was a burning and a shining light.” Though this, by frequent quotation, has passed into a sort of proverbial phrase, it is a most unfortunate rendering, and gives an entirely wrong impression of the meaning of the passage. As thus read it sets forth the pre-eminence of John, whereas its true import is to emphasize the subordinate nature of his office and work. Christ, as stated in the first chapter of this Gospel, was “the Light.” In comparison with Him, John was only a lamp which, in order that it may give light, must first be kindled from some other source. “He was the lamp which is kindled and [so] shineth.”

John xv. 3. “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you,” thus representing the word to be the instrument through which the cleansing was wrought. But though this be true, it is not the truth here set forth. It was not “through,” but “on account of” the word, _i.e._ because of its virtue and its cleansing power, that they were clean. Here, again, Wycliffe is free from the error into which all the later translators (except the Rheims) have fallen. He renders, “Now ye ben clene for the word that I haue spokun to you.”

Acts ii. 23. “Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and 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.