Part 7

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.

But, as already stated, manuscripts are not the only source whence we 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]