ON THE ORIGINAL TEXTS, AS KNOWN IN 1611, AND AS NOW KNOWN.

Another, and distinct, class of reasons for the further revision of the English Bible, arises from the more abundant material now possessed for the determination of the original text of Scripture than was within the reach of the Revisers of 1611.

Even if these honoured men had perfectly fulfilled their work, and had never erred in their interpretation of the sacred books, the result of their labours would still be open to correction because of the less perfect form of the texts which they set themselves to translate. The exact words used by the inspired writers are, as was stated in the first lecture, not now to be found in any one book or manuscript. They have to be gathered from varied sources, by long and careful labour, demanding much skill and learning. These sources, moreover, are so numerous that the investigation of them can be accomplished only by a large division of labour, no one life being long enough for the task, and no one scholar having knowledge enough to complete it alone. Nevertheless, it is well that our sources are thus extensive. Had one copy only of the books of the Old and New Testament come down to us, then, indeed, we should have been freed from the necessity of this manifold and laborious research, but unless this were the original copy itself, we should have had no means whereby to detect and to remove the errors which had crept in from the human imperfections of the transcribers. And though none of these errata might in any serious degree have affected the great truths which the Bible conveys to us, or have diminished our estimate of its surpassing worth, they would have been as blots upon its pages which our love and reverence for it would long to see removed. The greater the number and variety of our resources, the greater is our ability, by the examination and comparison of their differences, to remove these blemishes; and the greater also is the confidence we are able to feel in the absolute correctness of those far more numerous and extensive passages in which our authorities agree. And hence, though the toil imposed upon us is so largely multiplied thereby, we cannot but rejoice in the number and extent of our authorities, and we gather therefrom a fresh illustration of the saying, that “in all labour there is profit.”

The sources, whence our knowledge of the original texts is chiefly derived, are three in number: (1) Manuscripts containing one or more of the books of Scripture; (2) Ancient Versions of the Bible; and (3) Quotations of Scriptural passages found in the works of early Christian writers.

Respecting our Manuscript Authorities, the first fact claiming emphatic notice is, that while in the case of the classic poets, philosophers and historians, the extant manuscript copies are numbered by tens and sometimes even by units, those of the Scriptures are numbered by hundreds. Of the New Testament alone nearly eighteen hundred manuscripts have been catalogued and more or less carefully examined. Of these 685 are manuscripts of the Gospels, 248 contain the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 298 the Pauline Epistles, and 110 the Apocalypse; 428 are Lectionaries or service books of the Greek church, 347 of which contain passages from the Gospels and 81 passages from the Acts and the Epistles. Thus while our knowledge of the interesting narratives of Herodotus is dependent upon five or six authorities only, and the history of Livy upon eight or nine only (and none of these contain the whole even of the portions extant),[77] our knowledge of the life and words of our Lord is drawn from over a thousand manuscript authorities, and of which the larger part contain the whole of the four Gospels.

In antiquity again the manuscripts of the New Testament far surpass those of classical authors. Few, if any, of the latter are older than the ninth or tenth century, while of the former we have copies belonging to the fourth and fifth centuries. The oldest manuscripts are written in capital letters, and on this account are called uncial[78] manuscripts, or briefly uncials. Later manuscripts are written in a smaller character, and in a style approaching to what we call a running hand, and are hence named cursives. Of uncial manuscripts, containing portions of the New Testament, one hundred and fifty-eight have been examined and catalogued. Some of the most valuable of these have been published under the superintendence of careful editors. Others have been thoroughly examined, and their variations so faithfully noted and recorded, that a private student is, for most practical purposes, placed in the same position as the possessor of the manuscript itself. This work is technically described as collation, and the amount of painstaking labour spent upon the collation of Biblical manuscripts during the past two hundred years, and especially in the last forty or fifty years, is simply enormous. To one who has never examined a document written many centuries ago it is difficult to convey any adequate notion of the amount of time and labour involved in the collation even of a single manuscript. The unusual and varying forms of the letters, the indistinctness of the characters, the various contractions employed by the scribe, and, as is the case with our most ancient documents, the non-separation of word from word, and the absence of stops, render the mere task of deciphering the manuscript very difficult and painfully wearying to the eyes.[79] Much watchful attention is also demanded, as well as a good knowledge of the language, in making the proper separation of the words, and in judging aright of any peculiarities of spelling that may attach to the writer. In making the collation of any Biblical manuscript—say of the New Testament—the course generally pursued is as follows: The collator procures a printed copy of the Greek text, commonly of some well-known edition, and in the margin of this he marks all the variations of the manuscripts from the printed text before him, whether of omission, addition, or otherwise, including even variations in spelling. He also marks carefully where each line and page of the manuscript begins and ends, what corrections or alterations have been made in it, whether these were made by the original writer or by a later hand; and where several handwritings may be detected, he specifies and distinguishes these. All this is done with so much minuteness that it would be possible for the collator to reproduce the original manuscript in every respect save in the shape of the letters and the appearance of the parchment or paper.

Of the uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the most ancient and important are the Sinaitic,[80] written in the fourth century, and now deposited in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg; the Vatican,[81] also of the fourth century, and preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome; the Alexandrine,[82] of the fifth century, now in the British Museum; the Ephraem Codex,[83] of the fifth century, in the National Library at Paris; Beza’s Codex,[84] of the sixth century, in the University Library, Cambridge; and the Claromontane,[85] also of the sixth century, which formerly belonged to Beza, but is now in the National Library at Paris. As will be seen presently, only two of these most ancient manuscripts were available for the preparation of the text from which the translators of 1611 made their revision. The Alexandrine was not brought to light until 1628, when it was presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople. Although the Ephraem Codex was brought to Europe in the early part of the sixteenth century, it was not known to contain a portion of the New Testament until towards the close of the seventeenth century, and was not collated until the year 1716. The Sinaitic was discovered by Dr. Tischendorf, in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, so recently as February 4th, 1859. And the Vatican, though deposited in the Library at Rome in the fifteenth century, was, during a long time, so jealously guarded by the Roman authorities, that little use could be made of it. Now, however, all these six important manuscripts have been edited and published, some in the ordinary style of printing, and some in quasi fac-simile. At the present time, by the application of the processes of photography, an exact copy of the Alexandrine is in course of preparation, and the New Testament portion has been successfully completed.

In these and other ways, by the laborious efforts of many English and Continental scholars, an immense amount of material for the determination of the sacred text has been gathered together and safely garnered; and knowledge which aforetime could be attained only by slow and wearisome effort, by many long journeys to distant places, and by much personal search amongst the books and papers stored away in national and other libraries, can now be attained with comparative ease by the solitary student in his study. At the time when King James’s translators entered upon their work a small fraction only of this mass of material was available, and even that fraction was but imperfectly used. The means were not then possessed for correctly judging of the relative value of the several documents, nor had experience given the skill to discriminate wisely between varying testimony.

The translators of 1611 have left on record no statement respecting the Greek text from which they translated, but as far as can be gathered from internal evidence they contented themselves with accepting the forms of it which they found ready at hand. Of these the two then held in highest repute were those connected with the names of Theodore Beza and Robert Stephen. These, in their turn, were based upon the two primary editions of the printed text, the Complutensian and Erasmus’s, editions which were made quite independently of each other. The Complutensian was the first printed, though not the first published.[86] It formed the fifth volume of the splendid Polyglot prepared under the munificent patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, at Alcala, in Spain, from the Latin name of which city (Complutum) it derives its designation, and was completed January 10th, 1514. It is not now known from what manuscripts the text of this edition was derived, but it may be confidently affirmed that none of our most ancient authorities were used. They were probably not many in number, and were all what in this connection is termed modern; that is to say, not earlier than the tenth century. The first published edition of the Greek New Testament was that edited by the celebrated Erasmus, and sent forth from the press of Froben, in Basle, February 24th, 1516. This was derived from six manuscripts, five of which are now in the public library of Basle, and one[87] in the library of the Prince of Oettingen-Wallerstein. Of these one, and the most valuable, contained the whole of the New Testament except the Apocalypse, but of this Erasmus made but little use. Of the rest, one contained the Gospels only, two the Acts and the Epistles only, one the Epistles of Paul only, and one the Apocalypse only. It will thus be seen that in the Gospels the text given by Erasmus rested almost entirely upon the authority of a single manuscript; in the Acts and Catholic Epistles upon that of two only; in the Epistles of Paul upon three; and in the Apocalypse upon one only, and that an imperfect one. The last six verses were wanting, and these Erasmus supplied by translating them into Greek from the Latin of the Vulgate. The work too was hastily done. The proposal to undertake it was made to Erasmus April 17th, 1515, so that less than ten months were given to the preparation of the volume, and this, too, at a time when Erasmus was busied with other engagements; an unseemly haste that we may probably ascribe to the publishers’ eager desire to get the start of the Complutensian. Revised editions were published in 1519 and 1522, in the preparation of which the aid of a few additional manuscripts was obtained. These, again, were further revised by the aid of the Complutensian, which then became available, in an edition which Erasmus published in 1527.

The next stage in the history of the printed text of the Greek New Testament is marked by the publication at Paris, in 1550, of the handsome folio of the celebrated and learned printer, Robert Stephen.[88] He tells us in his preface that in the preparation of this edition he made use of the Complutensian and of fifteen manuscripts. Two of these were ancient, one that is now known as Beza’s Codex, which had been collated for him by a friend in Italy, and another, a manuscript in the National Library of Paris, written in the eighth or ninth century, and containing the four Gospels;[89] the rest were modern, and all were but imperfectly collated.[90]

After the death of Robert Stephen (1559)[91] the work of revision was carried on by Theodore Beza, who, like the former, had embraced the Protestant cause, and like him also had found a home in Geneva. His first edition was published in this city in 1565, a second in 1582, a third in 1589, and a fourth in 1598. In the preparation of these he had in his possession the collations made for Robert Stephen, and, in addition, the ancient manuscript of the Gospels and Acts which now bears his name; and for the Pauline Epistles, the equally ancient Claromontane. Beza’s strength, however, lay rather in the interpretation, than in the criticism, of the text, and he made but a slight use of the materials within his reach.

It will thus be seen how small, comparatively, was the manuscript authority for the text used by King James’s translators. In the main they follow the text of Beza; sometimes, however, they give the preference to Stephen’s; in some few places they differ from both. By what principles they were guided in their choice we do not know. They do not appear to have set on foot any independent examination of authorities, and when they forsake their two guides they commonly follow in the wake of some of the earlier English versions.

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.