THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I

HOPE my fellow-revisers of the New Testament will forgive me if I venture with all courtesy, but also with all freedom, to review their labours. Although I have not had the advantage of listening to their discussions, and cannot, therefore, always judge correctly of the reasons which have led them to adopt the changes which they have introduced, yet I can at least appreciate better, perhaps, than most of their critics the difficulties with which they have had to contend. In some respects these difficulties have been considerably greater in the revision of the New Testament than in that of the Old. In the first place there are the changes in the text necessitated by the discovery of many new and important MSS., by the ampler and more correct collation of all, by the better critical methods, enabling us to assign more accurately their proper value to all the various sources of evidence open to us whether in MS. Versions or Fathers. This is a difficulty which the Revisers of the Old Testament have not had to contend with. Their labours have not extended to a revision of the text. With very rare exceptions they have been obliged to content themselves with the printed Masoretic text; the variations of MSS. being, as a rule, insignificant; and even the Masoretic variations of Kethibh (what is written) and Keri (what should be read), being only in a comparatively few instances of importance. There are instances, it is true, in which the LXX. or other Versions have preserved what is beyond all reasonable doubt the true reading, but it is very rarely indeed, and only in cases where the Hebrew text is unquestionably corrupt, that it would be justifiable to depart from

it.

Hence, although important various readings of the Ancient Versions may find a place in the margin, the received Hebrew text must be generally followed. But, in the next place, and as a consequence of the different conditions under which the two Companies have laboured with regard to the text, it is obvious that a greater shock of surprise must

often be experienced by readers of the Revised New Testament, in proportion to the greater frequency of the changes necessitated by the mere adoption of a different text from that which was the basis of the Authorized Version. And, further, as the majority of readers have a more familiar acquaintance with the New Testament than with the Old, they will more readily detect changes, and more freely express their opinions. Moreover, the number of scholars in England conversant with the Greek text being much larger than the number conversant with the Hebrew, the number of critics must be proportionately greater.

But these difficulties apart, there are others common to the two Companies. Greater accuracy in the rendering of the article, and of the tenses, without injury to English idiom; the comparative advantages of free and liberal rendering; the desirableness of translating a word occurring in a number of different passages by the same word in English-these, and a number of other like questions have been before both bodies of translators, and a member of one Company is not likely to pass a hasty or censorious judgment on the work of the other Company; and though he may respectfully dissent from their conclusions, he will do so, feeling sure that there is a great deal to be said for them, and he is well aware that every word has been anxiously weighed, and every reasonable objection considered, and no alteration made, except from the most conscientious conviction of its necessity. I do not propose in this paper to give a sketch of the various Revisions of the English Bible, or even a history of the present Revision. The latter may be found in the preface to the Revised New Testament, and in the speech of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in the Upper House of the Southern Province of Convocation, on the 17th of May.

I shall proceed at once to consider some of the more salient points connected with the present Revision.

I. First and foremost among these is the revision of the text. Among the more striking changes of this kind is the omission of whole verses which appear in the commonly received text. That the celebrated passage in 1 John v. 7 should be struck out, was a matter of course. The evidence against its genuineness is overwhelming, and it is unnecessary to repeat the well-known arguments which have led every critic of note to reject the words as an interpolation.

Other omissions that will be noticed are part of the third, and the whole of the fourth verse of the 5th chapter of St. John's Gospel, which explain that the troubling of the water, in the pool of Bethesda, was due to the interposition of an angel; and the 37th verse, of the 8th chapter of the Acts, which contains the confession of faith on the part of the Eunuch of Candace before his baptism. The margin informs us in the first of these instances that "many," and in the second that "some ancient authorities insert the passage wholly or in part." In a like manner, Matt. xvii. 21, xviii. 11, and xxiii. 14 are omitted, with margins explaining that these verses have support from ancient authorities, but implying that they have been inserted from the parallel

passages in St. Mark or St. Luke. The doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew vi. 13 is also omitted; and the margin runs, "Many authorities, some ancient, but with variations, add, For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever, Amen.”

But there are other questions of reading which, though less obvious and less striking, at first sight, are certainly not less important. Such for instance, is the omission of the words "without cause" in Matt. v. 21, and again, in Matt. xix. 17, the important various reading, "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" is adopted, and the commonly-received reading placed in the margin; in Mark vi. 20 we have," He was much perplexed," instead of "He did many things”— said of Herod; in 1 Cor. viii. 7, Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge but some being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; instead of, "with conscience of the idol ;" in Rev. xxii. 14.-Blessed are they that wash their robes (instead of "do his commandments") that they may have the right to come to the tree of life.

Other instances are, Matt. vi. 1: Take heed that ye do not your righteousness (A.V., alms) before men; 1 John iii. 1: "that we should be called the sons of God; and we are such;" 1 Tim. iii. 16: “ He who was manifested in the flesh," instead of "God manifest in the flesh."

The Revisers have retained the disputed passage at the end of St. Mark's Gospel, xvi. 9-20, but separating it by a break from the rest of the Gospel, and informing English readers that the two oldest Greek MSS., and some other authorities omit the verses, and that some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.

Similarly, as regards the disputed passage in St. John vii. 53, viii. 11, they not only place it as a paragraph by itself, but enclose it in square brackets, in order to mark that still greater doubt attaches to it than to the other passage; for whereas the closing verses of St. Mark's Gospel, though not written by the Evangelist, are quoted by Irenæus in the second century as part of his Gospel, there can be no doubt that the verses which in the Received text form the beginning of the 8th chapter of St. John, are no part of his Gospel, though they certainly contain a true Evangelic record.

The Revisers unquestionably exercised a sound judgment in not adopting in the text of John i. 18 the reading μovoyévns Deóc, strongly as it is supported by ancient authorities; they were perfectly right in putting in the margin, "Many very ancient authorities read, God only begotten." Nothing short of the undoubted autograph of St. John himself would convince me that he wrote the words. If they were part of the original text, they would be, to my mind, the strongest evidence yet adduced of a later authorship of the Gospel. But I cannot help wishing that, in some other instances, the Revisers had shown equal courage in not adopting the reading for which there seemed to be a preponderance of evidence.

In Romans viii. 38, who can believe but St. Paul wrote: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor princi

palities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God"? Is it not certain that the received order, "angels, nor principalities, nor powers," is right, in spite of the consensus of critical authorities to the contrary?

In Romans v. 1, they have adopted exwuer, "let us have peace with God," and, by consequence, in verse 2, "let us rejoice." Here, again, the change of text is extremely questionable. It is true the subjunctive has the support of the majority of the uncials and ancient versions, and that it is the reading of Chrysostom and other Greek Fathers. But the interchange

of long and short vowels is so common in all languages, is so readily made in pronunciation, and hence would creep so easily into MSS., even without supposing dictation to a scribe, that it is not difficult to account for the variation, and the greater number of copies would in such a case prove nothing. Indeed, it may be questioned whether the singular phenomenon of an indicative after iva, which is found in one or two places, is anything more than a confusion between long and short. vowels. It may, of course, be an evidence of that general decay of the language, in which grammar dies, but it may be nothing more than an instance of such confusion. Moreover, Chrysostom's paraphrase here τουτέστι μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνωμεν is miserably lame; and it is not too much to say that the context and St. Paul's whole manner of thought are in favour of the indicative rather than the subjunctive. The privileges of which he speaks are present, not future. "The whole context," it has been rightly remarked, "is one, not of exhortation; but of dogmatic assertion. 'We have access;' it is 'this grace wherein we stand' (verse 2). We are reconciled; we shall be saved; the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts' (verse 10). We rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 11). 'We have received the reconciliation.' "It is an obviously right principle," says Mr. Moule," though calling. for most cautious application, that no amount of MS. evidence ought ever to force on us a reading which mars the context. A single stroke in the Greek MSS. makes the only visible difference between the readings."* Again, I cannot but regret the preference shown for the ardua lectio σVYKEKEρaoμÉvovs, in Heb. iv. 2; "but the word of hearing did not profit them, because they were not united by faith with them that heard." No doubt it may be alleged that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of that reading. On the other hand there is ancient authority for the commonly received reading συγκεκερασμένος, and among modern editors it has been adopted by Tischendorf; and this, whether we render, "because it was not united with faith in them that heard it," or better, "because it was not assimilated by faith in them that heard it," gives a far better sense. Indeed, the other reading, as Delitzsch has remarked, would require to make it intelligible, that it should be followed by "them that obeyed," not "them that See Rev. H. C. G. Moule's "Commentary on the Romans," in The Cambridge Bible for Schools.

heard."

Or even if we allowed that "heard" here is equivalent to obeyed," the sentence is a clumsy, awkward way of expressing what might have been said with perfect clearness and simplicity.

There is yet one other reading which the Revisers have admitted into their text, which only the stern compulsion of irresistible evidence would induce me to accept. I mean the ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας for εὐδοκία in Luke ii. 14. "And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased." Happily the margin informs us that authorities read peace, good pleasure among men.”

many ancient

I

In all these instances I do not say that the Revisers have done wrong in accepting the text for which they felt there was most evidence; as honest men, they were bound to do so; I only say that the evidence which satisfied them does not satisfy me. I do not think they have attached sufficient weight to the internal evidence of the context. admit, with Mr. Moule, that such evidence requires to be most cautiously applied. I am aware of the danger of assuming what a writer ought to have said, according to our own view of his meaning; but is it not certain that considerations of this kind did influence the Revisers in their refusal to put μovoyévns Oɛóç in the text? And if so, an extension of the principle to other instances would, I venture to think, have been desirable.

II. Next to the advantage of an improved text, is the advantage of more accurate renderings. Let me glance at some of those where the English reader will be helped to a more intelligent appreciation of the sacred writings. I cannot discuss them fully for want of space, but when so much adverse criticism has been lavished upon the Revisers, the really admirable points of their work deserve to be brought into prominence.

In

In Luke xvi. 8 the parable of the unjust steward (altered, I venture to think unnecessarily, into "the unrighteous steward "), the A. V. has, "And the lord commended the unjust steward"; a rendering which has occasioned serious perplexity to readers who supposed that "the lord" must mean Christ. The Revised Version: "And his Lord commended," makes all clear; and in verse 9, "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon," &c., removes the ambiguity.* John x. 14, "I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father," an important light is thrown upon the passage, which rightly rendered in the Rhemish Version, has been obscured in the A. V.; and in verse 16, instead of "there shall be one fold and one shepherd," the wrong translation alike of Rome and Geneva, we have now the true, which was given by Tyndale, "they shall be one flock, one shepherd.”

In Luke iv. 25, 26, the more substitution of "but only" for "save" is a distinct gain. In John vii. 17, "If any man willeth to do his will," the force of the Greek is brought out as in none of the previous versions, and an important truth elucidated, and even the return to Wiclif's

The Geneva Version, "friends with their riches of iniquities," is the only previous Version which avoids the ambiguity.