The Bible is all for the Christian, but not all about him. God in government, or Messiah and the Kingdom, might express the general character of the Old Testament, while God in grace, or Christ and the Church, would characterize the New Testament. Moses, by inspiration of God, opened the canon of divine revelation; Paul completed the subjects of which it treats (Col. 1:2525Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (Colossians 1:25)); John closed it with the Revelation. This blessed book is assailed on every hand — its inspiration is openly denied, its Divine authority unblushingly called in question, and its heavenly doctrines made the sport of an unbelieving world. Yet its subjects are grand, momentous, and divine; its themes are heavenly and eternal. It is the Word of God, and therefore it liveth and abideth forever.
Its Title
The title, “The Holy Bible,” now everywhere happily accorded to the whole collection of the sacred writings, was first used in the middle of the fourth century. The titles “Old Testament” and “New Testament” were probably borrowed, the former from 2 Corinthians 3:14,14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14) and the latter from Matthew 26:2828For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28). These expressions originally contemplated the relationships in which the Jews and Christians stood before God — the former before, and the latter after, the work of the cross. They then came to be applied to the books in which these covenants were expressed, hence the “Old Testament” and “New Testament”.
Before the Holy Bible was spoken of as such, it was generally termed “The Scriptures,” or “The Holy Scriptures.” The Apostles Peter and Paul so speak of the sacred writings (2 Peter 3:1616As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16); 2 Tim. 3:1515And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)). Philo, a philosopher and very learned Jew residing at Alexandria, and Josephus, the Jewish historian, equally learned, especially in all matters pertaining to his nation, and residing at Jerusalem, were both unbelievers, but both regarded the Old Testament as of divine origin, terming it “The Sacred Scriptures”; both, moreover, were contemporaries, and flourished in the middle of the first century. Both these scholarly Jews cruelly tampered with the very writings which they regarded as holy; Philo allegorizing almost everything related in them and turning facts into fancies; while Josephus distorted facts and exaggerated whatever would tend to the exaltation of himself and the glory of his nation.
The Truth Gradually Unfolded
For a period of 4000 years and more, God at “sundry times and in divers manners” successively revealed His mind and will to man. This He did by revelations and communications, orally or otherwise delivered, from Adam to Moses; and then from Moses to the Apostle John (with an interregnum of about 500 years) in writing, thus fixing the truth and giving it a settled and definite form and character. What a mercy to hold in our hands not a, but the Word of God! What a blessing to know the absolute certainty of those things whereof we are fully assured!
From Adam to Noah we have a period of more than 1600 years; again, from Noah till Abraham there is a period of about 400 years, and from Abraham till Moses about 500 years. Now carefully observe the facts. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:55And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Genesis 5:5)), and only died about 56 years before Enoch was translated. Noah, too, could have enjoyed several years’ intercourse with Enoch. Thus the man “who walked with God” could have held the hand of Adam with one hand and that of Noah with the other. We thus bridge the first period of the world’s history, and certainly the truth could not have suffered in its transmission, as Enoch is commended for his walk, and Noah for his testimony (Heb. 11:5-75By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:5‑7)). Again, Shem, Noah’s second son, the then depository of the truth (Gen. 9:2626And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Genesis 9:26)), was contemporary with Abraham for nearly a century. Thus we have Shem in special relationship with Jehovah, spanning the second and eventful period from the flood till the gracious call of Abraham, to whom further revelations of the truth were made. A new deposit of the truth was committed to Abraham — “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” (Gal. 3:1616Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)); and to each of the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ of Israel God communicated His mind. Thus we are carried up almost to the days of Moses, when the duration of human life became so curtailed (Psa. 90:1010The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10)) that it would be impossible to hand down the truth with the certainty that its purity would be maintained, as it would have to flow through so many channels.
Now we come to the written word, and here we would say that this form of communication exceeds by far any other mode of revelation whatever, “for Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name” (Psa. 138:22I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)). The first mention of a ‘book’ or of ‘writing’ in the Bible is in Exodus 17:1414And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. (Exodus 17:14). Moses began writing prior to the promulgation of the law. With certain intervals, the composition of the Old Testament extended through a period of about 1100 years, and was closed by the prophet Malachi. A few years after the death of Christ the books comprising the New Testament were begun with the Gospel of Matthew, and ere the first century of the Christian era closed, and before John the beloved apostle was taken to his Master, the whole of the New Testament was finished and in the hands and keeping of the Christian Church!
The Separate Books, Chapters, Verses, etc.
The first five books of Moses were originally written in one roll or book. The division into separate books and the titles of each are convenient for reference. They are very ancient, moreover, being arranged and titled in the Septuagint the same as in our Bibles. The two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, and the two books of Chronicles were originally one book each. The separation of those three books into pairs is forced, and to some extent destroys the connection: it would have been better if the original arrangement had been adhered to and sectioned off for the English reader. The division of the Bible into chapters is comparatively a modern arrangement, and still more so into verses. Cardinal Hugo, who lived about the middle of the thirteenth century, proposed to himself the task of preparing a concordance for more easy reference to the Vulgate, the Latin version of the Bible. For this purpose he divided the whole into chapters, which were found so very useful that in all subsequent editions and versions they were incorporated. About two centuries afterward a learned Jewish Rabbi, Mordecai Nathan, in order to assist in the study of the Hebrew Bible, prepared a concordance, and in order probably to simplify his work, he divided the Old Testament into verses, adopting however Hugo’s division of chapters. In our English Bibles, therefore, and in all modern versions and translations, we have not only Cardinal Hugo’s chapters, but Rabbi Nathan’s verses as to the Old Testament. Until the middle of the sixteenth century the whole Bible was divided into chapters, and the Old Testament only into verses. Robert Stephens, the indefatigable French printer and Bible publisher, adopting the Cardinal’s chapters and the Rabbi’s Old Testament verses, took in hand the New Testament, and divided it into verses, and then published the whole complete about 1551. Some 15 or 16 years afterward an English Archbishop, Parker, undertook to publish the Bible in our own language, with all the chapters and verses. This edition is generally spoken of as the Bishop’s Bible. A little more than 40 years after the publication of the Bishop’s Bible, our own version as in present use appeared — one, no doubt, capable of critical improvement, but hallowed and endeared to the hearts of many thousands in this and past centuries. The postscripts attached to the epistles should be rejected. They are certainly, some of them at least, very ancient, but also very misleading, and the reader will be safe in rejecting them as they are the work of copyists.
The Languages in Which the Bible Was Written
The Bible was originally written in three languages, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek. The whole of the New Testament was written in the Greek tongue. James wrote in it to the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, Peter to the Jews of the dispersion, and Paul to the Hebrews in Israel as well as to the Christians in the world’s metropolis — Rome.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew — the oldest of known languages, and perhaps the primitive tongue of man — save certain small portions which God caused to be written in the Syriac language. The sublime strains of Isaiah, the weeping plaints of Jeremiah, and the abrupt, forcible, and striking style and imagery of Ezekiel, could only be fully expressed in Hebrew, the language of the heart, as Greek is that of the mind. The Phoenicians (whose country bordered the Mediterranean, and whose merchant navy carried the rich produce of Persia, Egypt, and even India, to far distant lands, and who are believed to have penetrated even to the coasts of Great Britain) spoke Hebrew. Thus, no doubt, some glimpses of the truth were carried to the heathen of the ancient world. Heber, the last of the fathers before the dispersion, and from whom the name ‘Hebrew’ is derived, is believed to have spoken the Hebrew tongue; if so, it was likely the original language of mankind. The seven nations of Canaan also spoke Hebrew, and Abraham, when he left Mesopotamia, forsook his mother tongue, the Syriac, for that of the Canaanite.
Hebrew died out as a spoken and written tongue soon after the Babylon-captivity. The mass of the people during their exile — 70 years — learned the language of their conquerors, and forgot their own, so that on the return of certain remnants to Jerusalem, the book of the law, which was read in Hebrew, had to be expounded in Syriac (Neh. 8).
About 280 years B.C. the Old Testament was translated into Greek, by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, who was desirous, not only of enriching the great Alexandrian library with a copy of the Jewish Scriptures, but also to put the Old Testament into Greek, the then current language, on behalf of the many thousands of Alexandrian Jews who knew nothing of Hebrew. The Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, or Septuagint, as it is generally termed, was in general use in Israel during the time of our Lord, and from it, He and the writers of the New Testament repeatedly quoted. The Hebrew text, however, is paramount as an authority, for the chief advantage of the Jews over all others consisted in this, “that to them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:22Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:2)), and these written oracles were penned in Hebrew.
The other language used in the writing of the Old Testament is the Syriac, or more generally termed the ‘Aramean,’ from Aram, the Bible name of Syria (Gen. 10:22-2322The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. 23And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. (Genesis 10:22‑23)), sometimes also called, but erroneously, ‘Chaldean,’ that being a dialect peculiar to the learned in Babylon (Dan. 1:44Children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. (Daniel 1:4)). The Syriac was the tongue spoken by the Assyrians who destroyed the kingdom of Israel, and of the Babylonians who destroyed Judah. The several instances in which this language is used in the Old Testament are, first, Jeremiah 10:1111Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. (Jeremiah 10:11) in which the triumphing heathen are abruptly informed that their gods are doomed to utter destruction; second, Ezra 4:88Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: (Ezra 4:8) to 6:18, and 7:12-26, in these portions the haughty Gentile conquerors of Judah are informed in their own language of Jehovah’s abiding interest in His people, although but weak and few in number, having just emerged from their long captivity; third, in Daniel 2:44Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. (Daniel 2:4) to the close of chapter 7, here the rise, progress, and total destruction of Gentile power, is divinely sketched, and thus they are left without excuse.
The Hebrew tongue, (Acts 26:1414And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 26:14)) and the various Hebrew words and expressions, such as in Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:3441And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. (Mark 5:41)
34And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. (Mark 7:34)
34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34) spoken by Christ; also John 5:22Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. (John 5:2); Revelation 9:11,11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. (Revelation 9:11) must not be understood to mean the original Hebrew language, but simply that then spoken by the Jews. In general, the Lord and the Apostles spoke the common tongue — Greek. The exceptions we have indicated, as also Paul’s address on the Castle stairs at Jerusalem (Acts 22) were in the Syriac tongue. The inscription affixed over the cross of Jesus was written in Greek, the language of the people, in Latin, the official language of the imperial power, and in Hebrew, the ecclesiastical tongue of the heads of Israel, this latter meaning the Aramean.
History of the Text of the New Testament
By the ‘text’ of the New Testament is meant the ‘copy’ from which a translation is made. Of course all the originals were manuscripts; and copies continued to be written till about A.D. 1440, when printing was invented.
The originals are all lost, but there are many manuscripts in existence, and any printed Testament must have been copied from one or more of those manuscripts, or have been produced by comparing few or many of the manuscripts and selecting what was supposed to have been written at the first.
In the numerous MSS of the Greek Testament it would perhaps be impossible to find two that were exactly alike. Thousands of the differences, however, are of comparatively little importance (except that we value the very words of Scripture), many of the discrepancies being the trivial errors of copyists. It has been estimated that the variations really worthy of notice and research represent only one-thousandth part of the whole New Testament.
In some few places it is difficult to tell what the original was; but God has so well guarded the manuscripts that not one of the fundamental truths of Christianity is in the slightest degree made uncertain, or in any way questionable.
At first the material on which books were written was papyrus, which was of so frail a nature that only small portions of the Scriptures have come down to these days. Parchment was afterward used, and this was much more lasting. It is held that both these materials are alluded to by Paul in ‘the books’ and ‘parchments’ in 2 Timothy 4:1313The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. (2 Timothy 4:13).
It is from the fourth century that the earliest Greek copies in existence date, and this leaves unrepresented a long period from the time when the books were written. This, however, is partially bridged over by the oldest of the Syriac and Old Latin translations, which date about the second century, and represent what was in the Greek copies from which those translations were made.
To judge of the age of a manuscript the material on which it is written is not the only guide, the style of writing also comes to our aid. The earliest copies were written all in capital letters (called uncial, from uncia, an inch; though the letters are much smaller than an inch, some of the initial letters may approach that size), whereas later ones were written in cursive, or running hand.
The words were also all joined together without any spaces between them, and with few if any points. Words were also at times divided at the end of a line without any regard to syllables. It is easy to see that mistakes might occur in copying such when the words were divided: as, for instance in English, the word ‘nowhere’ was once mistaken for ‘now here.’
ΛΠ’ ΛΡΧΗΣ from [the] beginning
ΑΠΑΡΧΗΝ [the] first-fruits.
The latter is found in many manuscripts, and was chosen by Lachmann; but the former is without doubt the correct reading.
Another source of error was the practice of contracting the words: thus instead of KΥΡΙΟΣ, Lord, only KΣ would be written, a line being placed over the letters to show that it was a contraction. The faint line at the top might become invisible in time, and lead to mistakes. An important passage will exemplify this. In 1 Timothy 3:1616And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16) occur the words, “God was manifested in the flesh.” Here the word ΘΕΟΣ for ‘God’ was contracted into ΘΣ, but in two of the principal manuscripts (now known as A and C) it cannot be told whether or not it was originally as above, or
ΟΣ, ‘who’―’who was manifest in the flesh.’
Among the variations caused by the copyists there is a class of errors called Homoearkton, or ‘similar beginnings’; that is, when two or more lines or clauses begin with the same letters, the eye in copying is apt to skip from one to the other. Thus in Hebrews 2:1313And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. (Hebrews 2:13) there are two clauses commencing with καί πάλιν, ‘and again’; two manuscripts omit all between these words, the eye having wandered from the first to the second.
On the other hand there are errors called Homoeoteleuton, ‘similar endings’; that is, when two lines or clauses end with the same word, the eye is apt to pass from one to the other, and omit the words intervening.
Another difficulty experienced in deciphering the manuscripts is the many corrections or additions that have been made. Of course the original scribe may have discovered that he had made a mistake, and then corrected the manuscript either by writing between the lines or in the margin; but now it is difficult to tell whether such is really the case, or whether the alteration was by a later hand. Tischendorf judged that the Codex Sinaiticus had passed through ten different hands. Editors (those who have attempted to discover what the text was originally) distinguish as far as possible between the ‘hands’ that have corrected a MSS. Thus A ‘primâ manu’ (or Ap.m. or A¹) points out the first corrector; A ‘secundâ manu ‘ (or As.m. or A2) the second corrector, and so forth. A¹ may or may not be the original scribe. We give a facsimile of this Codex. It is John 6:14-1514Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (John 6:14‑15).
As nearly as may be, it would stand thus in English without the corrections.
HEDIDASIGNThEy
SAID THISIS
TLULYTHEPRO
PHETWHOINTOTHEwoRl
ISCOMING.
JsTHEREFOREKNOWINGTHAT
THEYWEREABOUTTo
COME ANDSEiZE
HIMANDTOPRO
CLAIMKING
ESCAPESAGAININTOtHe
MOUNTAINALONEHIMSElf.
In course of time parchment began to be scarce, and in some instances copies of the New Testament were rubbed out, and something else written on the parchment. In some of such the original reading can be deciphered by using chemicals. These manuscripts are called rescripts, ‘written again,’ or palimpsests, ‘scratched or scraped again.’ We give a specimen.
/
No doubt some of the errors have been made with the idea of improvement, such as making one Gospel to agree with another. Quotations from the Old Testament into the New are at times added to or altered. The New Testament was also divided into sections to be read in the assemblies. If a portion commenced with “He said,” it would be altered perhaps to “Jesus said.” Such portions of scripture were called Lectionaries, or readings.
It will be seen by the foregoing that it is no easy matter to ascertain in every place what was the original reading; and it is certainly not a work for which many are qualified. The witnesses to be examined are:
(1.) The Greek Manuscripts themselves, both uncial and cursive, giving each and all their true weight: some of these are Lectionaries.
(2.) Versions, early translations of the Greek into various languages.
(3.) The Fathers. Their writings show what was in the copies of the New Testaments from which they quoted. A list of the principal of these three authorities will be found in “Our Father’s Will,” and a fuller list in the New Translation of the New Testament by J. N. Darby.
Canon of the New Testament
Happily very few Christians are in any way troubled respecting the Canon of the New Testament. The term ‘Canon’ in Greek and Latin signifies ‘a rule or standard by which other things are tried.’ Paul uses it in this sense in Galatians 6:1616And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16) and Philippians 3:1616Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (Philippians 3:16). As applied to the books of Scripture it is used to signify a true and complete list. Such a list will test and detect all that are not true. We call such books canonical in opposition to others which are apocryphal or spurious.
If the questions were asked, How do we know that we have all the inspired books intended by God to form the New Testament? and how do we know that all the books we have are inspired? very few would be able to give any other answer than that they believe God has taken care that we should have all, and none but His own.
If the same questions were asked of an intelligent Roman Catholic he would say that he relies on what his church teaches; but, as is well known, that church admits the books known as the O.T. Apocrypha. As to the N.T. the church universally has for centuries acknowledged the same books, and those only. This is well, but may we not say that doubtless God not only caused the Canon to be settled as it is, but has caused His people in all sections of the church to receive the same. It is a false principle that the church settles what is, and what is not Scripture, if even it could give a unanimous voice. It is only the depository and guardian of the Scriptures. The Word of God authenticates itself to the heart and conscience in the power of the Holy Spirit — the same Spirit who inspired the men who wrote the books — and the Christian is sensible of its completeness. People may say, ‘O you must prove it.’ The proof is in the tasting of the sweetness and completeness of the Word. Because none can prove that sugar is sweet, that not does affect the fact that it is sweet, and those that taste it know for themselves. So it is with the Holy Scriptures.
Printed Greek Testaments
We name the principal of these, especially those which are occasionally referred to by modern Editors.
1. The Complutensian Edition. This was the earliest printed Greek Testament. It was edited by Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, in connection with his University at Alcala (Complutum), whence its name. It was not published till 1522.
2. The Editions of Erasmus. His first edition was published in 1516. It was hastily compiled, but subsequently he issued five Editions.
3. The Editions of Stephens. His first edition was published in 1546. His third Edition (1550) has often been reprinted in this country. In his fourth Edition (1551) he divided the text into verses.
4. The Editions of Beza. His first Edition was in 1565. He mostly copied from that of Stephens, 1550.
5. The Elzevir Editions. These date 1624 and 1633. In the second Edition the text is professedly the text received by all, and hence the title of the ‘Textus Receptus.’ This Edition has often been reprinted on the continent. In the main it agrees with Stephens, 1550. Both of these have often been referred to as ‘the received text.’
6. Mill’s and Bengel’s followed; but are now seldom referred to.
7. Wetstein. Published in 1751-2. His principal work was collecting material.
8. Griesbach. After Bengel, Griesbach was the first to arrange the manuscripts in families or groups, putting together those that appeared to be copies of some one manuscript. He called one group Alexandrian, and another Western, and another Byzantine. He was also the first to alter the received text where he thought it erroneous. He also gave some readings as ‘very probable,’ or ‘probable.’ His principal Edition (his second) was published in 1796-1806, and his manual Edition in 1805.
11. Scholz. Published in 1830-36. His chief work was collating additional manuscripts.
12. Lachmann. His principal edition was published in 1842-50. He was perhaps the first to set wholly aside the ‘received text,’ and edit an independent text from available manuscripts.
13. Tischendorf. He spent more than thirty years in collecting materials and editing works bearing on the Scriptures. His seventh edition was published in 1856-9, and his eighth in 1865-72. He gives a pretty full list of evidence both for and against any reading adopted.
14. Tregelles. This editor also spent some thirty years in examining manuscripts, etc. The Gospels appeared in 1857, and the Revelation in 1872. He confined his attention almost exclusively to the few most ancient copies.
15. Alford. With his Commentary he gave a Greek text. He mostly agrees with Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles.
16. Wordsworth. This writer also gave a Greek text with his Commentary. He was more conservative than other modern editors, for he believed that God had over-ruled the common text, and that this should not be departed from except on good authority. He therefore retained many readings which were rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford.
17. Westcott and Hort. These editors adopted an intricate system in forming their text, and may perhaps be said to be the very reverse of Wordsworth, and are considered by some to have been somewhat rash in their alterations. 1881.
18. The Revisers. Though these did not edit a Greek text, their work shows what readings they adopted. 1881.
Many readings may also be gathered from the New Translation of the New Testament by J. N. Darby, though he never edited a Greek text.
The reader will, perhaps, desire to know what good use can now be made of all this labour bestowed upon the Greek text. Though all the Editors have aimed at restoring the text to the original writing, each Editor has adopted his own line of working out this object. Some devoted their attention to the older copies only; others weighed all. The only guide we know of is that where all the Editors, say from Lachmann onwards, agree on a reading, it may safely be taken as the one to be adopted in preference to the received text. But, of course, readings in which not quite all agree may often be the right.
The readings in Greek and English from Griesbach to Wordsworth may be found in the notes to the “Englishman’s Greek Testament” (Bagster); and from Griesbach to the Revisers in a Concordance of Various Readings added to the “Englishman’s Greek Concordance” (Bagster).
Authorized Version of 1611
A few words may be deemed desirable as to the Greek text used in the Authorized Version. It has often been supposed that this agrees exactly with the ‘Textus Receptus’ of Stephens, 1550, or the Elzevir of 1624; but this needs a little modifying.
The original preface of 1611 does not say what Greek text was to be followed: indeed the then existing published texts differed but little. As to date it came between the Editions of Beza and those of Elzevir, and mostly agrees with the text of Stephens, 1550. Modern Editions of the Authorized Version do not strictly follow the original of 1611, and it is curious to find that the translators in a few places followed neither Stephens nor Beza. The Bishops’ Bible was published in 1568.
Mark 15:33And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. (Mark 15:3). A.V. ‘but He answered nothing,’ with Comp. Stephens 1546, 1549, and Bishops’. But St. 1550, Beza, and modern Editors omit the words.
Jude 1212These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; (Jude 12). A.V. ‘Feast with you,’ with Comp. and Bishops’, St. and Beza, with all Editors, omit ‘with you.’
Rev. 18:55For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:5). A.V. ‘have reached,’ with Comp. and modern Editors. St. and Beza read ‘followed.’ For fuller particulars as to the text of the N.T. the reader is referred to “Our Father’s Will,” by the publishers of the Revised Version.)
The Revised Version
Many manuscripts have been discovered and examined by Editors since the Authorized Version of 1611; and when the Committee of Revisers undertook a new translation they also had to determine what Greek text they should follow: in other words they had to determine what they should translate, before they could settle how to translate it.
For the first question they had a rule laid down for them, namely, “To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness.” But they have been openly charged with entirely disregarding this rule. They were also bound by one of their rules to note in the margin all the alterations of the text which they adopted; but this they in no way carried out. Of course in many cases the alterations of the text are what all modern editors are agreed upon, and how much safer it would have been to have followed such a rule.
Another thing to be lamented is the many places in the margin where they throw needless uncertainty upon the text by such remarks as “many ancient authorities read” something different.
As to the translation itself, there can be no doubt that in many places the revised version is for the better; but many persons competent to judge have not been slow to denounce it as on the whole unworthy to represent what God caused to be written as His Word, and one of sound judgment has said he believes that no person could habitually use the Revised Version without damaging his soul.