Assay.Deut. iv. 34; Job iv. 2; Acts ix. 26, &c.Attent.2 Chron. vi. 40.Bestead.Isa. viii. 21.Blain.Exod. ix. 9, 10.Bolled.Exod. ix. 31.[Brickle.Wisd. xv. 13.]Brigandine.Jer. xlvi. 4; li. 3.Bruit.Jer. x. 22; Nah. iii. 19.Calamus.Exod. xxx. 23; Cant. iv. 14; Exek. xxvii. 19.Camphire.Cant. i. 14; iv. 13.Causey.1 Chron. xxvi. 18.Chanel-bone.Job xxxi. 22,marg.Chapiter.Exod. xxxvi. 38, &c.Chapman.2 Chron. ix. 14.Chaws.Ezek. xxix. 4.[Cithern.1 Macc. iv. 54.]Cockatrice.Isa. xi. 8, &c.Collops.Job xv. 27.Confection.Exod. xxx. 35.Coney.Lev. xi. 5, &c.To Convent.Jer. xlix. 19,marg.Cotes.2 Chron. xxxii. 28.To Couch.Dent, xxxiii. 13.Countervail.Esth. vii. 4.Daysman.Job ix. 33.[Dehort.1 Macc. ix. 9.]Delicates.Jer. li. 34.Dredge.Job xxiv. 6,marg.Dure.Matt. xiii. 21.Earing.Gen. xlv. 6.Endirons.Ezek. xl. 43,marg.Flue-net.Hab. i. 15,marg.Gier eagle.Lev. xi. 18.Gorget.1 Sam. xvii. 6,marg.Habergeon.Exod. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 23, &c.Helve.Deut. xix. 5.Hough.Josh. xi. 6, 9.Implead.Acts xix. 38.Jewry.Dan. v. 13; John vii. 1.Knop.Exod. xxv. 31, &c.Leasing.Ps. iv. 2; v. 6.Makebate.2 Tim. iii. 3,marg.Muffler.Isa. iii. 19.Neesing.Job xli. 18.Ossifrage.Lev. xi. 13.Ouches.Exod. xxviii. 11, &c.Pilled.Gen. xxx. 37.Prelation.1 Cor. xiii.,heading.Purtenance.Exod. xii. 9.Ravin.Gen. xlix. 27.Rereward.Num. x. 25, &c.Scall.Lev. xiii. 30.Scrabble.1 Sam. xxi. 13.A Settle.Ezek. xliii. 14, &c.Silverling.Isa. vii. 23.Sith.Ezek. xxxv. 6.Tabering.Nah. ii. 7.Tache.Exod. xxvi. 6.Throughaired.Jer. xxii. 14,marg.Thrum.Isa. xxxviii. 12,marg.Viol.Isa. v. 12.Wimple.Isa. iii. 22.
Assay.Deut. iv. 34; Job iv. 2; Acts ix. 26, &c.
Attent.2 Chron. vi. 40.
Bestead.Isa. viii. 21.
Blain.Exod. ix. 9, 10.
Bolled.Exod. ix. 31.
[Brickle.Wisd. xv. 13.]
Brigandine.Jer. xlvi. 4; li. 3.
Bruit.Jer. x. 22; Nah. iii. 19.
Calamus.Exod. xxx. 23; Cant. iv. 14; Exek. xxvii. 19.
Camphire.Cant. i. 14; iv. 13.
Causey.1 Chron. xxvi. 18.
Chanel-bone.Job xxxi. 22,marg.
Chapiter.Exod. xxxvi. 38, &c.
Chapman.2 Chron. ix. 14.
Chaws.Ezek. xxix. 4.
[Cithern.1 Macc. iv. 54.]
Cockatrice.Isa. xi. 8, &c.
Collops.Job xv. 27.
Confection.Exod. xxx. 35.
Coney.Lev. xi. 5, &c.
To Convent.Jer. xlix. 19,marg.
Cotes.2 Chron. xxxii. 28.
To Couch.Dent, xxxiii. 13.
Countervail.Esth. vii. 4.
Daysman.Job ix. 33.
[Dehort.1 Macc. ix. 9.]
Delicates.Jer. li. 34.
Dredge.Job xxiv. 6,marg.
Dure.Matt. xiii. 21.
Earing.Gen. xlv. 6.
Endirons.Ezek. xl. 43,marg.
Flue-net.Hab. i. 15,marg.
Gier eagle.Lev. xi. 18.
Gorget.1 Sam. xvii. 6,marg.
Habergeon.Exod. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 23, &c.
Helve.Deut. xix. 5.
Hough.Josh. xi. 6, 9.
Implead.Acts xix. 38.
Jewry.Dan. v. 13; John vii. 1.
Knop.Exod. xxv. 31, &c.
Leasing.Ps. iv. 2; v. 6.
Makebate.2 Tim. iii. 3,marg.
Muffler.Isa. iii. 19.
Neesing.Job xli. 18.
Ossifrage.Lev. xi. 13.
Ouches.Exod. xxviii. 11, &c.
Pilled.Gen. xxx. 37.
Prelation.1 Cor. xiii.,heading.
Purtenance.Exod. xii. 9.
Ravin.Gen. xlix. 27.
Rereward.Num. x. 25, &c.
Scall.Lev. xiii. 30.
Scrabble.1 Sam. xxi. 13.
A Settle.Ezek. xliii. 14, &c.
Silverling.Isa. vii. 23.
Sith.Ezek. xxxv. 6.
Tabering.Nah. ii. 7.
Tache.Exod. xxvi. 6.
Throughaired.Jer. xxii. 14,marg.
Thrum.Isa. xxxviii. 12,marg.
Viol.Isa. v. 12.
Wimple.Isa. iii. 22.
A still larger number of words or phrases, though still finding a place in our current speech, have wholly or partially changed their meanings. Amongst these are the following:
All to brake.Judges ix. 5.Base.1 Cor. i. 28; 2 Cor. x. 1.Botch.Exod. ix. 9.Bought of a sling.1 Sam. xxv. 29,marg.Bravery.Isa. iii. 18.Bray.Prov. xxvii. 27.By and by.Matt. xiii. 21; Luke xxi. 9.Captivate.2 Chron. xxviii.; Jer. xxxix.,headings.Careful.Dan. iii. 16; Phil. iv. 6.Carriage.Judges xviii. 21; Acts xxi. 15.Cast about.Jer. xli. 14.Chafed.2 Sam. xvii. 8.Champaign.Deut. xi. 30.Charger.Matt. xiv. 8; Mark vi. 25.Charity.1 Cor. xiii. 1, &c.Churl.Isa. xxxii. 5, 7.Cieling.1 Kings vi. 15.Clouted.Josh. ix. 5.Cockle.Job xxxi. 40.Comfort.Job ix. 27.Confectionary.1 Sam. viii. 13.Contain.1 Cor. vii. 9.Conversation.Gal. i. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xiii. 5.Convince.Jno. viii. 48; Jas. ii. 9.Cunning.Ps. cxxxvii. 5.Curious.Exod. xxviii. 8; xxix. 5.Damnation.1 Cor. xi. 29.Delicately.Lam. iv. 5; Luke vii. 25.Discover.Ps. xxix. 9; Mic. i. 6; Hab. iii. 13.Doctrine.Mark iv. 2.Duke.Gen. xxxvi. 15.Ensign.Num. ii. 2; Isa. v. 26.Fast.Ruth ii. 8, 21.Fetch a compass.Acts xxviii. 13.Flood.Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.Footman.Jer. xii. 5.Fret.Lev. xiii. 55.Grudge.Ps. lix. 15.Hale.Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3.Harness.1 Kings xx. 11; xxii. 34.Indite.Ps. xlv. 1.Jangling.1 Tim. i. 6.Kerchief.Ezek. xiii. 18, 21.Lace.Exod. xxviii. 28.Latchet.Isa. v. 27; Mark i. 7.Let.Exod. v. 24; Isa. xliii. 13; Rom. i. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7.Lewd.Acts xvii. 5.Lewdness.Acts xviii. 14.Man-of-War.Exod. xv. 3, &c.Maul.Prov. xxv. 18.Minister.Josh. i. 1; 1 Kings x. 5; Luke iv. 20.Napkin.Luke xix. 20; John xi. 44; xx. 7.Naughtiness.1 Sam. xvii. 28; Prov. xi. 6; James i. 21.Naughty.Prov. vi. 12.Nephew.Judges xii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 4.Observe.Mark vi. 20.Occupy.Exod. xxxviii. 24; Judg. xvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 9; Luke xix. 13.Painfulness.2 Cor. xi. 27.Palestine.Exod. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29.Pap.Luke xi. 27; Rev. i. 13.Parcel.Gen. xxxix. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32; Ruth iv. 3; John iv. 5.Peep.Isa. viii. 19; x. 14.Poll.Num. i. 2, &c.Pommel.2 Chron. ix. 12.Port.Neh. ii. 13.Prefer.Esth. ii. 9; Dan. vi. 3; John i. 25.Presently.Matt. xxvi. 53; Phil. ii. 23.Prevent.Ps. lix. 10; cxix. 147; 1 Thess. iv. 15.Proper.Acts i. 19; 1 Cor. vii. 7; Heb. xi. 32.Prophesy.1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 3, 4.Publican.Matt. v. 46, &c.Purchase.1 Tim. iii. 13.Ranges.Lev. xi. 35.Refrain.Prov. x. 19.Riot.Titus i. 6; 1 Peter iv. 4; 2 Peter ii. 13.Rioting.Rom. xiii. 13.Riotous.Prov. xxiii. 20; Luke xv. 13.Road.1 Sam. xxvii. 10.Scrip.1 Sam. xvii. 40; Matt. x. 10, &c.Secure.Judges viii. 11; xviii. 7, 10; Job xi. 18; xii. 6; Matt. xxviii. 14.Set to.John iii. 32.Shroud.Ezek. xxxi. 3.Sod.Gen. xxv. 29.Sottish.Jer. iv. 22.Table.Hab. ii. 2; Luke i. 63; 2 Cor. iii. 3.Target.1 Sam. xvii. 6; 1 Kings x. 16.Tire.Isa. iii. 18; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23.Tired.2 Kings ix. 30.Turtle.Cant. ii. 12.Vagabond.Gen. iv. 12; Ps. cix. 10; Acts xix. 13.Venison.Gen. xxv. 28.Wealth.2 Chron. i. 12; Ps. cxii. 3; 1 Cor. x. 24.Witty.Prov. viii. 22.
All to brake.Judges ix. 5.
Base.1 Cor. i. 28; 2 Cor. x. 1.
Botch.Exod. ix. 9.
Bought of a sling.1 Sam. xxv. 29,marg.
Bravery.Isa. iii. 18.
Bray.Prov. xxvii. 27.
By and by.Matt. xiii. 21; Luke xxi. 9.
Captivate.2 Chron. xxviii.; Jer. xxxix.,headings.
Careful.Dan. iii. 16; Phil. iv. 6.
Carriage.Judges xviii. 21; Acts xxi. 15.
Cast about.Jer. xli. 14.
Chafed.2 Sam. xvii. 8.
Champaign.Deut. xi. 30.
Charger.Matt. xiv. 8; Mark vi. 25.
Charity.1 Cor. xiii. 1, &c.
Churl.Isa. xxxii. 5, 7.
Cieling.1 Kings vi. 15.
Clouted.Josh. ix. 5.
Cockle.Job xxxi. 40.
Comfort.Job ix. 27.
Confectionary.1 Sam. viii. 13.
Contain.1 Cor. vii. 9.
Conversation.Gal. i. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xiii. 5.
Convince.Jno. viii. 48; Jas. ii. 9.
Cunning.Ps. cxxxvii. 5.
Curious.Exod. xxviii. 8; xxix. 5.
Damnation.1 Cor. xi. 29.
Delicately.Lam. iv. 5; Luke vii. 25.
Discover.Ps. xxix. 9; Mic. i. 6; Hab. iii. 13.
Doctrine.Mark iv. 2.
Duke.Gen. xxxvi. 15.
Ensign.Num. ii. 2; Isa. v. 26.
Fast.Ruth ii. 8, 21.
Fetch a compass.Acts xxviii. 13.
Flood.Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.
Footman.Jer. xii. 5.
Fret.Lev. xiii. 55.
Grudge.Ps. lix. 15.
Hale.Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3.
Harness.1 Kings xx. 11; xxii. 34.
Indite.Ps. xlv. 1.
Jangling.1 Tim. i. 6.
Kerchief.Ezek. xiii. 18, 21.
Lace.Exod. xxviii. 28.
Latchet.Isa. v. 27; Mark i. 7.
Let.Exod. v. 24; Isa. xliii. 13; Rom. i. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7.
Lewd.Acts xvii. 5.
Lewdness.Acts xviii. 14.
Man-of-War.Exod. xv. 3, &c.
Maul.Prov. xxv. 18.
Minister.Josh. i. 1; 1 Kings x. 5; Luke iv. 20.
Napkin.Luke xix. 20; John xi. 44; xx. 7.
Naughtiness.1 Sam. xvii. 28; Prov. xi. 6; James i. 21.
Naughty.Prov. vi. 12.
Nephew.Judges xii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 4.
Observe.Mark vi. 20.
Occupy.Exod. xxxviii. 24; Judg. xvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 9; Luke xix. 13.
Painfulness.2 Cor. xi. 27.
Palestine.Exod. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29.
Pap.Luke xi. 27; Rev. i. 13.
Parcel.Gen. xxxix. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32; Ruth iv. 3; John iv. 5.
Peep.Isa. viii. 19; x. 14.
Poll.Num. i. 2, &c.
Pommel.2 Chron. ix. 12.
Port.Neh. ii. 13.
Prefer.Esth. ii. 9; Dan. vi. 3; John i. 25.
Presently.Matt. xxvi. 53; Phil. ii. 23.
Prevent.Ps. lix. 10; cxix. 147; 1 Thess. iv. 15.
Proper.Acts i. 19; 1 Cor. vii. 7; Heb. xi. 32.
Prophesy.1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 3, 4.
Publican.Matt. v. 46, &c.
Purchase.1 Tim. iii. 13.
Ranges.Lev. xi. 35.
Refrain.Prov. x. 19.
Riot.Titus i. 6; 1 Peter iv. 4; 2 Peter ii. 13.
Rioting.Rom. xiii. 13.
Riotous.Prov. xxiii. 20; Luke xv. 13.
Road.1 Sam. xxvii. 10.
Scrip.1 Sam. xvii. 40; Matt. x. 10, &c.
Secure.Judges viii. 11; xviii. 7, 10; Job xi. 18; xii. 6; Matt. xxviii. 14.
Set to.John iii. 32.
Shroud.Ezek. xxxi. 3.
Sod.Gen. xxv. 29.
Sottish.Jer. iv. 22.
Table.Hab. ii. 2; Luke i. 63; 2 Cor. iii. 3.
Target.1 Sam. xvii. 6; 1 Kings x. 16.
Tire.Isa. iii. 18; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23.
Tired.2 Kings ix. 30.
Turtle.Cant. ii. 12.
Vagabond.Gen. iv. 12; Ps. cix. 10; Acts xix. 13.
Venison.Gen. xxv. 28.
Wealth.2 Chron. i. 12; Ps. cxii. 3; 1 Cor. x. 24.
Witty.Prov. viii. 22.
If, in reading these passages, we attach to the words here mentioned the meaning that they ordinarily bear, the resulting sense will in each case be very different from that intended to be conveyed by the translators. In some of the passages the sense thus given will be so manifestly inappropriate that the reader is necessarily driven to seek for some explanation; but in others of them no such feeling may be awakened, and the reader is undesignedly betrayed into error. Through no fault of the translators, but by the inevitable law of change in language, the words which once served as stepping-stones, by whose aid the reader could rise to a clearer perception of the truth of God, have become stumbling-blocks in his path, and cause him to wander from the way. Respect, therefore, for the translators, as well as loyalty to the Scripture, constrain the demand that these rough places be made plain.
ON THE IMPERFECT RENDERINGS INTRODUCED OR RETAINED IN THE REVISION OF 1611.
The two reasons for further revision which were illustrated in the last lecture are, as will have been seen, of universal application, and must sooner or later apply to every version of the Scriptures, however perfect that version may have been when it was first made. But whatever the skill with which King James’s translators fulfilled their labours (and it is universally acknowledged to be worthy of the highest praise), it would be a vain fancy to imagine that theirs was a perfect work. They themselves would never have claimed such an honour for it, and already in their own day some of their renderings were called in question by competent men. Even if they had never failed in applying the means at their command for the interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek originals, they knew that the knowledge then possessed of these ancient tongues was far from complete, and that by further study and advancing research it would be possible to attain to a more accurate and extensive acquaintance with them.
The progress made in the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew during the last two centuries has, in fact, been such as the revisers of 1611 could have little anticipated. A long list might easily be drawn up of eminent scholars who have given themselves to the investigation of the grammar of the two sacred languages, and of others who have laboured in illustratingthe meaning of their terms. In the case of Hebrew, large additions to our knowledge, both of its grammar and its vocabulary, have been won from a source almost entirely unexplored in former times; namely, the study of Arabic and other cognate languages; and in the case both of Hebrew and Greek, much has been gained by the labours of those who have given themselves to the investigation of the general principles of language, and to the study of the relations which different languages sustain to each other. The knowledge of Hebrew and Greek thus attained has been from time to time applied by a still larger number of eminent men to the elucidation of the several books of the Bible, and an immense amount of valuable material for their interpretation has thus been stored up. The meaning of obscure and difficult passages has been elaborately and independently discussed by men of different nationalities, and of different types of theological opinion, and in this way the sense of many passages formerly misunderstood has been satisfactorily determined. And such being the case, it is clearly the incumbent duty of all who truly reverence the Scriptures to desire that these imperfections and obscurities shall be removed, and the more so that some of these erroneous renderings have been used by the opponents of the Bible as their weapons of attack.
That the reader may be able to form some definite judgment upon the matter here presented to him, his attention is called to the following selection of passages from different parts of the Bible, in which it will now be generally acknowledged by competent judges that the translators of 1611 have failed to give a faithful representation of the meaning of the original texts:
Gen. iv. 15 is rendered, in the version of 1611, as in previous versions: “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him,” and no small amount of ingenuity has been wasted in the endeavour to decide what this supposedmark upon the body of Cain might be. The rendering moreover altogether misrepresented the import of the passage. The “mark” or “sign” was not something intended for the warning of others, but was given to remove the fears of Cain himself, expressed in verses 13, 14: “The Lord set a sign for Cain [to assure him] that whoever found him would not kill him.”
Gen. xx. 16. Here Abimelech is made to say to Sarah, “Behold, I have given thy brother a thousandpiecesof silver; behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, with all that are with thee, and with allother; thus she was reproved,” a statement which is both misleading and obscure. It was not Abraham, but the present of money, that was to be for Sarah a covering of the eyes, that is, a testimony to her virtue, and by this act of the king she was not reproved for her conduct, but was cleared in her character. The latter part should be rendered, “Behold, it shall be to thee a covering of the eyes ... and thus she was righted.”
Exod. xvi. 15. “And when the children of Israel sawit, they said one to another, It is manna, for they wist not what it was.” To the ordinary reader this seems to involve a contradiction; but the stumbling-block is at once removed by the more faithful rendering, “They said one to another, What is it? for they wist not what it was.” Further on, in verse 31, it is stated that from this cry, “What is it?” the bread from heaven thus given to them was called Manna, or more correctly Man (the Hebrew word for What?).
Josh. vi. 4. “And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns.” This is a very unfortunate rendering; for not only are rams’ horns solid, and so also unsuitable for wind instruments, but also it is only by the merest fancy that any reference to rams can be brought in at all. The word rendered “rams” is “jubilee,” the same as that given to the great Year of Release. It denotes either some kind of trumpet, and is so used Exod. xix. 13, or the sound orsignal given by a trumpet. The Year of Release derives its name, the Year of Jubilee, from the solemn sounding of trumpets throughout the land with which it was inaugurated. The original term should here be kept, and the verse should read, “And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of jubilee.”[67]
Judges v. 7. “The inhabitants ofthe villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.” Here the translators first of all misunderstood the word which they have rendered “villages,” and were then driven to introduce the words “the inhabitants of,” for which, as the italics show, there was nothing in the Hebrew. The picture really drawn in the verse is not that of the depopulation of the country, but of the defenceless and disorganized condition of the people through the absence of judges or rulers. The Septuagint gives the true sense: “The rulers ceased, they ceased in Israel.”[68]
Judges xv. 19. “But God clave an hollow place thatwasin the jaw, and there came water thereout.” A strange misrepresentation of the meaning of the original. The hollow place was not in the jaw-bone with which Sampson had slain the Philistines, but in some cliff in the neighbourhood, and which derived its name, Ramath-lehi, or more briefly Lehi, from this memorable exploit. The words should be rendered, “But God clave the hollow place which is in Lehi.”
1 Sam. ix. 20. “And as for thine asses that were lost three days ago, set not thy mind on them, for they are found. And on whomisall the desire of Israel?Is itnot on thee and on all thy father’s house?” A needless difficulty is here created by suggesting that already the hearts of the people had been setupon Saul for their future king, whereas his future elevation to that office was as yet known to Samuel only. This is removed by the right rendering: “Whose are all the desirable things of Israel? Are they not for thee, and for thy father’s house.”[69]
2 Sam. v. 6. “Except thou take away the blind and the lame thou shalt not come in hither;” a statement to which the reader finds it difficult to attach any appropriate sense. The verse is correctly rendered by Coverdale, who reads, “Thou shalt not come hither, but the blynde and lame shall dryve thee awaie.”
2 Sam. xiv. 14. “For we must needs die, andareas water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respectanyperson: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.” The statement that God doth not respectanyperson, however true in itself, has here no relation to the context. The natural meaning of the original words is very different, “God doth not take away life,” that is, as shown by what immediately follows, does not at once and without mercy inflict punishment as soon as guilt is incurred, but “deviseth means,” &c.
2 Kings viii. 13. “And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” Thus read, the words imply that Hazael shrank indignantly from the actions described in the preceding verse; whereas the sense of the passage is that he viewed himself as too insignificant a person to do what he clearly regarded as a great exploit. “But what is thy servant, the [or this] dog, that he should do this great thing?”
1 Chron. xvi. 7. “Then on that day David delivered firstthis psalmto thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” This conveys the impression that the psalm which follows is the first psalm that David published, whereas thestatement is that on this memorable day—the day on which David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom—he formally appointed Asaph and his brethren to the office of superintending the service of praise. (Compare verse 37.) “Then on that day David first gave the praising of the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.”[70]
Job iv. 6. “Is notthisthy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?” By the insertion of “this,” a wrong complexion is given to the passage. Eliphaz, in reference to Job’s fainting under his sufferings, calls attention to the confidence he had formerly professed on the ground of his fear of God and of the uprightness of his conduct; and so indirectly suggests that Job’s piety and uprightness had been unreal. “Is not thy fear [i.e.thy fear of God, thy piety] thy confidence; and thy hope,is it noteven the integrity of thy ways?”
Job xix. 26. “Andthoughafter my skinwormsdestroy thisbody, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” As the italics show, the original contains nothing corresponding to the words “though,” “worms,” and “body.” Their insertion does not indeed change radically the meaning of the verse, but they weaken its force, and in a measure alter its imagery. The picture presented by the original is a very vivid one. The patriarch, pointing to his body wasting away under disease, says, “After my skin is destroyed thus, yet from my flesh shall I see God.”
Job xxiv. 16. “In the dark they dig through houses,whichthey had marked for themselves in the daytime; they know not the light.” Here the meaning of the second clause has been altogether missed, and the whole passage is thereby greatly obscured. The writer is describing the deeds of those who rebel against the light and love the darkness: as with the murderer (v.14) and the adulterer (v.15), so is it with the robber. “Inthe dark they dig through houses; in the daytime they shut themselves up; they know not the light.”
Job xxxi. 35. “Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desireis,thatthe Almighty would answer me, andthatmine adversary had written a book.” Job, having asserted his innocence, expresses his strong desire that the charges against him might be brought for decision before the divine tribunal. He, on his part, is quite prepared for the trial; there, he says, is his statement, signed and sealed; let the adversary in like manner present his indictment; he would then be sure of a triumphant issue. “Oh that I had one who would hear me! Behold my mark! May the Almighty answer me, and that I had the accusation that my adversary had written. Surely, I would carry it on my shoulder, I would bind it as chaplets upon me.”
Ps. xvi. 2, 3. “Thou artmy Lord; my goodnessextendethnot to thee.Butto the saints thatarein the earth, andtothe excellent, in whom is all my delight.” Every reader of this psalm must have felt how obscure, if not unintelligible, are these words. A more faithful rendering gives a clear and appropriate sense, “Thou art my Lord, I have no good above thee. As for the saints on the earth, and the excellent, in them is all my delight.”[71]
Ps. xlii. 4. “When I remember thesethings, I pour out my soul in me, for I had gone with the multitude. I went with them to the house of God.” The words of the Psalmist are not, as this rendering makes them to be, a mere statement of what happens whenever he remembers the sorrows of the past, and the mockery of his adversaries. They are a declaration of his purpose to remember, with lively emotion and gratitude, the privileges and mercies with which he had beenblessed. “I will remember these things [i.e.the things he is about to mention], and I will pour out my soul within me, how I passed along with the multitude, how I went with them [or how I led them] to the house of God.”
Ps. xlix. 5. “Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil,whenthe iniquity of my heels shall compass me about?” This, though seemingly an exact rendering of the Hebrew, wholly misleads the English reader. The phrase, “iniquity of my heels,” can only suggest to him the iniquity which the man himself has committed, a sense which is altogether unsuited to the passage. The Psalmist would never say that his own personal transgressions were not to him a ground of fear. The word, which in Hebrew means “heel,” is that also which, by a slight modification, forms the name of the patriarch Jacob, the “Heeler,” or supplanter of his brother. In the opinion of many scholars, the simple form here used admits of the same meaning, and they render, “when the iniquity of my supplanters [or the iniquity of those who plot against me] compasseth me about.” Whatever be the true explanation of the Hebrew phrase, it is quite certain that it is the iniquity of others, and not of the speaker, which is referred to. Some change, therefore, in the rendering is clearly called for.
Ps. xci. 9, 10. “Because thou hast made the Lord,which ismy refuge,eventhe Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee,” &c. The earlier English translations, the Bishops’, the Genevan, the Great Bible, and Wycliffe’s, have all kept nearer to the original than this. The most ancient version of all, the Septuagint, renders it correctly. The psalm is one of those which are intended to be sung by two singers, or two companies of singers, responding one to the other, and hence arises the frequent change of person that occurs in it. In the first clause of this verse we have one of the singers chanting, “For thou, O Lord, art my refuge.” In the second clause we have the response of the other singer, “Thou hast made theMost High thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee,” &c., down to end of verse 13.
Eccl. iv. 14. “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas, also,he that isborn in his kingdombecomethpoor.” The meaning attached by the Revisers of 1611 to the second clause seems to be, that the old and foolish king referred to in the previous verse, who was “born in his kingdom,” that is, who succeeded to the kingly power by inheritance, becomes, through his obstinacy, a poor man. This sense can only be got from the words by much straining, and has led to the introduction of the word “becometh,” which represents nothing in the original.[72]The correct rendering gives a plain and suitable sense: “For from the house of prisoners he goeth forth to reign, although in his kingdom [namely, the kingdom over which he now rules] he was born poor.”
Isa. lxiii. 19. “We arethine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name.” The sense of this passage is entirely changed by the introduction of the word “thine.” The verse is the penitential acknowledgment of the depressed condition into which the nation had fallen in consequence of its sins. They are no longer as the chosen inheritance (v. 17), they are as an alien people. The Genevan translators give the true sense of the passage, “We have been [better, We are become] as they over whom thou never barest rule, and upon whom thy name was not called.”
Jer. iv. 1, 2. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.” This as it stands is hopelessly obscure. The passage is an emphatic announcement of the blessings thatwould come to the nations from the penitent return of Israel to its faithful allegiance. If Israel will return, will put away all its abominations, and no longer swearing by idols, as if they were the highest objects of reverence, should make in truth and uprightness their appeals to Jehovah, then the nations would share in the blessedness of the kingdom. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, wilt return unto me, and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, and wilt not go astray, and wilt swear, ‘The Lord liveth’ in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, then the nations shall bless themselves in him,” &c.
Ezek. x. 14. “And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” This conveys a wrong impression. The prophet is describing, not as he is here represented, the four faces of all the cherubim, but one face only of each. The Bishops’ Bible gives the true sense by rendering, “Every one of them had four faces, so that the face of the first was the face of a cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man, and of the third the face of a lion, and of the fourth the face of an eagle.”
Ezek. xxii. 15, 16. “And I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee. And thou shalt take thine inheritance in thyself in the sight of the heathen, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.” The dark phrase, “thou shalt take thine inheritance in thyself,” is commonly explained to mean, that whereas aforetime they were God’s inheritance, they shall now be left to find their inheritance by themselves. A more lucid and more suitable meaning is given to the words by the rendering adopted by most modern commentators, “thou shalt be profaned through thyself in the sight of the nations.”
Dan. iii. 25. “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of thefourth is like the Son of God.” It is clearly misleading to attribute to Nebuchadnezzar any such exalted conception as that which we attach to the phrase, “the Son of God,” and so to render the clause misrepresents the original. The correct translation is “one like to a son of the gods.” A similar error occurs in vii. 13, where “one like the Son of man,” should be “one like a son of man.”
Hos. vi. 3. “Then shall we know,ifwe follow on to know the Lord;” thus making the prophet to declare that the attainment of knowledge is dependent upon our perseverance in the search after it. This is an important truth, but is not the meaning of the verse, which is simply an emphatic exhortation to know God and to persevere in knowing Him. “Yea, let us know, let us follow on to know, the Lord.”
Hosea xiii. 14. “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” Though there is some difference of opinion respecting the right rendering of the earlier part of this verse, all are agreed that these should be rendered as they are quoted in 1 Cor. xv. 55, “Where are thy plagues, O death? Where is thy destruction, O grave?”
Matt. vi. 16. The rendering “they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast,” misleads the reader by conveying the impression that the Pharisees were endeavouring to obtain credit under false pretences—were seeming to fast when not doing so in reality; whereas the conduct condemned is that of parading, and calling public attention to, their religious observances. “They disfigure their faces, that they may be seen of men that they are fasting.”[73]So also in verse 18.
Matt. xi. 2. “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” Here the true force of the passage is missed. “Christ,” as used by us, is a proper name, designating the person, and not simply the office ofour Lord. It was not because John had heard of certain works done by Jesus of Nazareth that he sent his disciples to Him, but because he recognized in the accounts which were brought to him deeds characteristic of the Christ, the promised Messiah. “When John heard in the prison the works of the Christ.”
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. “Inyour 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 ashe didunto 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 byHisresurrection 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 wefirstbelieved.”
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 inHim 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 knownbythe 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 despisethem, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers ofthe 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.
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 imperfectionsof 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 fiveor 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 ascollation, 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 theletters, 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 theSinaitic,[80]written in the fourth century, and now deposited in the Imperial Library of St.Petersburg; theVatican,[81]also of the fourth century, and preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome; theAlexandrine,[82]of the fifth century, now in the British Museum; theEphraem 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 theClaromontane,[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 inquasi 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 beengathered 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 firstpublishededition of the GreekNew 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 thepreparation 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 sourcewhence 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 aconsiderable 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 aboutA.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 writingsof 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 ofthe 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.