« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
ment, that will prove of value in enabling us to estimate the charges more justly.
The rule laid down for the Revisers by Convocation was very simple and definite. They were to put their alterations of the text into the margin. The Revisers, however, supply the information in their Preface, that they found this inconvenient, and therefore they have disregarded it; for they have made nearly 6,000 alterations in the Greek text, or not less than three changes in every four verses. They therefore put the changes which they made day by day into the text, and then at once proceeded to translate them, and issued the translations of the new text as if they had merely revised the old one. The book is therefore a version of a New Testament; but as it differs in about 6,000 places from the old Greek text, and in about 36,000 places from the former English translation, it seems almost a delusion to call it simply a revision, as if it was still the old text with merely such corrections of the translation as were necessary for truth.
When we read the Revisers' own account of the manner in which they arrived at their decisions upon alterations in the text, our distrust becomes still stronger; not, however, distrust of the earnestness and conscientiousness of the Committee, for of this there cannot be a doubt,-but of the capability of any large and fluctuating Committee for such a task as that of correcting, in an ordinary meeting, the Greek text of such a work as the New Testament. From Dr. Newth's description of the usual proceedings, it would appear that the changes in the text were practically dependent upon the opinions of two of the Revisers-Drs. Scrivener and Hort—and that the remainder did apparently little more than endorse them. He thus describes their ordinary mode of procedure (p. 119):
"The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman,
asks whether any textual changes are proposed? By tacit consent, the two members of the Company who, from their previous studies, are most competent to speak with authority, state the evidence for and against-viz., Dr. Scrivener and Dr. Hort. Dr. Scrivener opens the matter, and Dr. Hort follows, adding what he thinks important, or differing, as the case may be. After discussion the vote of the Company is taken, and, ‘the text being thus settled,'* the chairman asks for proposals on the rendering."
In his book On the Revision of the English Testament, published in 1870, the Bishop of Gloucester (the chairman of the Revision Committee) asks (p. 50), "What amount of change due to purely textual revision might be expected in our present Authorised Version?" and in the following pages he gives careful calculations, from which he arrives at the conclusion (p. 52) "that we should hardly be far wrong in estimating the amount of changes as not exceeding one for every five verses, or under 1,400 in all, very many of these being of a wholly unimportant character." So far from this being the actual limit, it is said that nearly 6,000—not 1,400-has been the real number of changes made. t
REASONS GIVEN FOR OMITTING THE DOXOLOGY.
As an illustration of what had to be taken into account before being able to arrive at a decision as to any important change which should entitle it to be received as conclusive, we may quote Dr. Roberts's account, and his own concluding summary, of the grounds upon which the Revisers decided to omit the Doxology from our Lord's Prayer. (Roberts, p. 60.)
The Doxology is not found in N, B, and D, but it is
* The italics are by the author of this paper.
+ The alterations in the Greek text amounted on an average to twenty-five at each sitting of the Committee, though most of them were so trifling as only to be appreciated by minute-almost microscopic-examination.
found in A and C; i. e., it is not found in three of these great uncials, but it is found in two of them; omissions being the characteristic of N and B.
It is not found in the Memphitic (Lower Egypt), the Old Latin, and the Vulgate Versions, but it is found in the greater number of the Ancient Versions, viz., the Peshito Syriac, and Cureton's Syriac (which contains "the kingdom,” and "the glory," but not "the power"), in the Sahidic (Upper Egypt), the Ethiopic, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Slavonic; i.e., it is not found in three versions, but it is found in seven others of the most ancient versions, and it is partially present in an eighth.
It is not noticed by the earliest Fathers, by Origen in the third century, or by Cyril of Jerusalem, but it is quoted by Isidorus in the same century as Origen, and by Chrysostom and other Greek Fathers and by Ambrose in the fourth century; i. e., it is not noticed before the third century, nor then, by two eminent Fathers, but it is quoted by three of as early date and of equal fame, and by numerous others whose names are not specified.
So far for the external evidence of Uncials, Versions, and Fathers; but Dr. Roberts further alludes to the internal evidence, which, he says, "is somewhat" against it, as "an interruption of the text." And his conclusion upon the foregoing evidence is that, "upon the whole, criticism must pronounce decidedly against the clause as forming part of the original text; and it is accordingly not admitted into the Revised Version." If this is the decided conviction produced by the above evidence upon the minds of the Revisers-and it was upon such evidence that this portion of the text has been expunged-those who have not been present at the meetings of the Committee may not impossibly arrive at a different conclusion, not having been subjected to the influence of such powerful minds as often bear sway, from
their eminent qualities, in a large company of persons, all of whom do not profess to be specially skilled in such a question as the criticism and correction of a text involving vast research among MSS. and other materials, and presenting such difficulty in estimating their true value as that of Uncials, Versions, and Ancient Fathers.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ORIGIN OF DIFFERENT READINGS IN DIFFERENT MSS. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In order to illustrate the manner in which different readings have found their way into various MS. copies of the New Testament, and now into the Revised Version, and the difficulty of detecting and correcting them, we may take an example from the Acts, the Gospels, and the Epistles. The first is a matter of little more apparent importance than a simple literary curiosity; the second affects us as an unwelcome change in a familiar and time-honoured Christmas hymn; and the third has doctrinal importance attached to it, upon which, in this Society, we do not enter; and the example is simply used to illustrate the complicated difficulty that surrounds some of the investigations.
1st. THE NUMBER OF ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN SHIPWRECK. In Acts xxvii. 37, we read in the Authorised Version, "And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls," and in the Revised Version a marginal note is added, "Some ancient authorities read, about threescore and sixteen souls'"-"about" 76, instead of "in all" 276! How could such a discrepancy arise ? Probably in the following manner.
The Greek in the Textus Receptus is
Ημεν δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ ἁι πασαι ψυχαι διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκοντα ἑξ. hemen de en to ploio hai pasai psuchai diakosiai hebdomekonta hex We were and in the ship the all souls 6
Some scribe, in copying this, has made a change in the order
of the words, either by accident, or supposing it to be an improvement (which is a common source of variety of readings), and has arranged the words as follows:
Ὧι πασαι ψυχαι ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ.
But in writing in uncial, or capital letters, no interval was left between the words, and the numbers were written in Greek letters, instead of words. The verse, therefore, became
the last three letters being figures C=200, O=70, S 6. In some subsequent copy, the last has been written twice over, and the C, an old-fashioned form of S (200), has been joined to it, and the verse has thus become
'ΑΙ ΠΑΣΑΙ ΨΥΧΑΙ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΠΛΟΙΩ ΩC suchai en to ploio 08 souls in the ship about and the original "276" has thus become "about 76," from the repetition, by accident, of a single letter.
2nd. THE ANGELIC HYMN (Christmas). In the Authorised Version this hymn, in St. Luke ii. 14, is "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men," which is altered in the Revised Version into
"Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased."
How can such a discrepancy be accounted for? In the Textus Receptus, the Greek is
Δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐιρήνη, ἐν Glory in the highest to God and upon earth peace, in (or towards) men ευδοκία
good will (or good pleasure).
Assuming this to be the hymn as really sung by the angels,