WE now turn to our venerable Authorized Version, with a view to ascertain, as far as we can, from what Greek text it was taken, and also to see what light all that has come before us throws upon the question of its integrity. We will first glance at the original preface.
The translators feared that their work would be evilly spoken of, for no one had ever sought to do any good for the people, but had been maligned: "Whosoeuer attempteth anything," said they, "for the publicke (specially if it pertaine to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himselfe vpon a stage to be glouted vpon by euery euil eye, yea, he casteth himselfe headlong vpon pikes, to be gored by euery Sharpe tongue.”
But this did not daunt them: they well asked, "What pietie without trueth? What trueth (what sauing trueth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the scripture?”
They had profound reverence for the scripture: "The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the enditer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets ... the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, &c ... happy is the man that delighteth in the scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth on it day and night.”
But how could men meditate upon what they could not understand because of being in an unknown tongue? "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain that we may look into the most holy place.”
But then the question was raised, Was there any need of a new translation, seeing the Bible was already in the English tongue? "Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?" On the other hand, others said, "Why do they now mend it? Was it not good?" The translators explain that they had no desire to find fault with any of their predecessors, but thought it good to go over the same work again to seek to make it more perfect. As secular books had been gone over again and again, "What ought we not to bestow upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem thereof abideth forever?" They did not seek to make a good translation out of a bad one, but "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.”
They tell us that they translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the New from the Greek; but do not tell us what Greek text they used. This we can only arrive at by comparing it with the Greek texts then in existence.
Of other matters they then speak. The first point is in favor of marginal readings in points of difficulty, rather than giving one sole interpretation.
The next point is that the translators refuse to be bound in any way to translate the same Greek word by the same English word, even when the sense is precisely the same. They defended their diversity very curiously: "For as it has been written of a certain great philosopher, that he should say that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped: for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire! so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished forever, we might be taxed peradventure, with St. James's words, namely, To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts.... niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling.”
They commend the reader to God and to the Spirit of His grace, which was able to build them up further than the translators could tell or think; and thus warn their readers: "If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light; if food, if clothing be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves.”
From other sources we ascertain that the following were among the rules laid down for the guidance of the translators:—
“1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
“2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.
“3. The old ecclesiastical words to be used: as the word church not to be translated congregation, &c.
“4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.
“5. The divisions of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
"6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
"7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.
[Then follow rules as to how the work was to be apportioned out to different translators and finally revised.]
“14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: viz., 1, Tyndale's; 2, Matthew's; 3, Coverdale's; 4, Whitchurche's (i. e., Cranmer's); 5, The Geneva."
It will be seen that the above rules do not give any intimations to the translators as to what Greek text should be taken. And indeed there was the less need for any such instructions, seeing that the Greek texts then in vogue differed little from one another; and anything beyond them was but little known at that time. Still variations were known to exist, and it is a little surprising that no mention was made as to what text should be used.
As to date, the Authorized Version came in between the editions of Beza and those of Elzevir, but it is clear that the translators did not keep strictly to any one text then in existence; for whereas their version mostly agrees with the edition of Stephens 1550, in some places they chose Beza's text in preference.
It will have been seen from the above that the Authorized Version was rather a revision of the Bishops' Bible, than an entirely new translation. Now the Bishops' Bible was made by Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by some fifteen known scholars, and published in 1568, about thirty years before the last edition of Beza's Greek Testament; so that there can be no doubt that the translators of the Authorized Version referred to the editions of Beza; but as to why they chose his readings in some places in preference to those of Stephens 1550, we are quite in the dark; and it may be that in other places they simply followed the Bishops' Bible.
That they did not adopt Beza's text to the exclusion of Stephens's is also evident, for where the two texts differ they adopted about a score of Stephens's readings; and, strange to say, in some places they agree with neither Stephens nor Beza.
We will refer to these places with an endeavor to ascertain what could have guided the translators.
Matt. 2:1111And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11). A. V., "they saw," with Complutensian and the Bishops' Bible. Stephens and Beza have "they found." Stephens had "they saw" in his margin, and this reading has been fully confirmed by the researches of modern editors. The Vulgate has invenerunt, "they found.”
Matt. 10:1010Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. (Matthew 10:10). A. V., "staves," with Complutensian. St. and Beza, "staff." Stephens had "staves" in his margin, but this reading has not been conclusively established by further evidence.
Mark 4:1818And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, (Mark 4:18). St. and Beza have (a second) “these are" before "such as hear the word." Comp. omits the words; but the translators may have thought the sense complete without their repetition.
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.
Luke 12:5656Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? (Luke 12:56). A. V., "of the sky and of the earth," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. Stand Beza "of the earth and of the sky" with all modern Editors.
Luke 20:3131And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. (Luke 20:31). A. V., "the seven also, and they left," with Erasmus and Bishops'. St. Beza omit ‘and' (reading ‘the seven also left') confirmed by all modern Editors.
Acts 27:2929Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day. (Acts 27:29). A. V., "we should have fallen," with Comp., Vulg., and Bishops'. St. and Beza, "they should have fallen." Stephens had the reading of A. V. in his margin, and it has been fully confirmed by modern editors.
Philem. 1:77For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother. (Philemon 7). A. V., "joy," with Comp., Vulgate, and Bishops'. St. and Beza, ‘return thanks' instead of ‘have joy,' the word for ‘return' or ‘have' remaining unchanged; but joy' is confirmed by all subsequent Editors.
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., but St. and Beza have "followed." All modern Editors agree with the reading of A. V.
It will be seen that the translators in two of the places named may have followed the margin of Stephens, and in the others, the Complutensian, the Vulgate, or the Bishops.'
In the main, however, the translators followed Stephens and Beza; but Beza had copied Stephens for the most part, and Stephens had copied Erasmus. This latter fact is striking in a few places. For Stephens in his edition of 1550 in some places abandoned his former text and all his manuscripts, in favor of readings given by Erasmus, and these were mostly retained in our Authorized Version.
Mill quotes the following instances of this going back, not to manuscripts, but to the printed edition of Erasmus:
In all the above cases more recent researches have proved that Stephens made a mistake in leaving his manuscripts: they were right, and Erasmus wrong.
It might naturally have been supposed that as Beza had additional manuscripts, his text would have been purer than that of Stephens; but this is certainly not the case in all places. Rom. 7:66But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6) is a remarkable instance of a false reading in Beza, and which found its way into the Authorized Version, although right in Stephens 1550. Beza gave ἀποθανόντος which makes the passage read that the law was dead; ἀποθανόντες is the right reading, and this makes the persons to have died: the difference is doctrinally of great importance. The false reading, though supported by no Greek manuscript and by no version, was copied into the Elzevir text.
This will help us in the consideration as to whether the Authorized Version needs revision. There are two things that must never be confounded. First, what are the true Greek words that ought to be translated? and, secondly, how are they to be translated? Our question is concerning the former only, and not the latter. While all speak highly of the Authorized Version as a translation, most admit that in this it may be improved in some places. The grave difficulties are, who are to make the alterations, and how much is to be altered, so that the work shall commend itself to Christians generally?
But our subject is the text to be translated. The above passage in Rom. 7:66But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6) ought to convince any person that in some places a purer text ought to be taken. If our readers will also turn back to the variations in the Revelation, they will see that some of the readings in the Authorized Version have, as far as we have any means of knowing, absolutely no manuscript authority whatever. Surely such passages ought to be altered. But in many places the sense may not be affected; and if the text is to be altered, the grave question is, who is to do it, and do it in such a way that it shall, as in the translation, commend itself to all Christians? This is a much more difficult question than the translation of the text after that is fixed on. The translation may perhaps be amended to commend itself to most; but as to the text, only few are at all able to judge as to where the text needs altering, and will naturally cling to their time-honored New Testament. If portions were left out, and others added, we can easily see how many good Christians would look upon the work with the greatest abhorrence, if not designate it as the work of Satan!
While this is being written, as is well known, there is a Committee of learned men revising the Authorized Version of the scriptures. Of course, they will have to consider both of the above questions; but we fear that of the two, their choice of text will be that which may give the least satisfaction, as it is undoubtedly the most difficult. Whether this revised translation will ever become the Authorized Version of this country remains to be seen.
But our readers will naturally expect that we should give them some sort of finger-post to guide them through the apparent labyrinth of the various readings shown forth in uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers. First, let us repeat what we said at the commencement, that though there are thousands, of various readings, they do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. All these remain intact; still, as we need and desire to know the very words of our God, we should value every help that would lead us to a more correct text. To attain this we know of no better plan for the general reader than to be guided by the united judgment of the various editors. There have been men who have labored diligently and faithfully in the task of discovering what was the text of the New Testament as God caused it to be written at the first. These laid down certain rules for themselves-one taking this path, and another that; but in many cases they all arrived at the same conclusion. Where this is so, we consider that the student of scripture will be safe in taking their united judgment as decisive for a reading.
As to the editors to be taken we should not advise going further back than Griesbach, and even since his day a great mass of evidence has came to light. Scholz may be omitted, for, as we have seen, he rejected his own plan of action before he died. We should say, take Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Green, and Wordsworth; and Westcott and Hort when published.
Of course we should recommend this for private study, and not for public use. We see no difficulty in the Authorized Version being used in public, as the Septuagint was used by our Lord and His apostles even where it is not an exact translation of the Hebrew—and only corrected where absolutely necessary. By this means we shall preserve the familiar and forcible language of the Authorized Version, and still be furnished by the above, together with some good new translation, which may also confirm the text to be used, with all we may need to arrive at a true text, and the translation of the same.