The necessity of thinking of the duty at this time arises from two causes, setting in contrast our own circumstances with those under which our version was made: one relating to the things old, the other to the things new.
When that version was made, rather when it was constructed and amended out of former ones, the available sources whence the sacred text was to be derived were very few indeed, and those for the most part not of a high order. In almost every case where the real text is matter of doubt, and has to be ascertained by evidence, our translators had not that evidence before them. By far the greater and more important part of it was not brought to light in any trustworthy form till within the memory of living men. Nay, one of its most ancient and principal witnesses has been within the last few years discovered and given to the Church. And the consequence is that, setting aside all cases of indifferent or unimportant variations, there is by this time an immense weight of responsibility pressing on the Church with regard to these varieties of reading: a weight which it seems to me only those can be contented to rest under, who are not aware of its magnitude. We, the Churches of Christ in this land, are causing to be read to our people, to take but a single very solemn instance, words respecting one of the foundation doctrines of the faith which are demonstrably no part of Scripture at all. And we of the Church of England are doing worse: we are reading those words by special selection, implying that they convey a proof of that doctrine, on the Sunday set apart by its name. This is perhaps the most prominent example: but there is no lack of others: we might quote instances where the text found in our English Bibles, which passes current with millions for the word of God, has but the very slenderest, if any authority to rest upon, and where other words, which very few of those millions ever heard of, really are, according to the Church’s own belief respecting Scripture, the message of God to men. We might produce examples again, where the evidence of the great authorities is so nearly balanced, that to the end of time, if no more witnesses are discovered, the question never can be decided which of two or more is the true reading.
Now there is no reason to think that there was any fault in our translators as regards this matter. Where they in their time knew of an important variation, they noted it in their margin, or indicated it by the type of their text. But in the great majority of cases, the fact was not, and could not be, within their knowledge at all. Upon us in our own time has it fallen to carry out their principles with the vastly extended light which God has shed upon us.
But, it is asked, are we able to do this? As regards the text of the New Testament, where these variations principally occur, certainly we are. The whole ground has been of late years thoroughly and repeatedly worked over, and the evidence is well known. In many of the most important of varying passages, the decision of biblical scholars would be shortly and easily made, which reading to adopt or reject, or whether to take the middle course of fairly representing the uncertainty. The number of such important variations is but limited; and in most of them, the voice of ancient testimony is all one way. So that it seems to me there would be no formidable difficulty, as regards the things old, in setting right at this time the unavoidable errors, and supplying what were the necessary defects, of our English Bible.
We now come to the second of the reasons which seem to press on the Church at this time the duty of reviewing her stewardship of the Holy Scriptures; and that reason concerns the things new—the form in which those Scriptures are represented in the vernacular tongue. In the main, as has been already said, we have in this respect nothing to regret, and but very little that we should be compelled to change. The character and spirit of our version are all that we can desire. But it is utterly impossible for any one capable of judging to deny, that it is disfigured by numerous blemishes, far too important to be put by or condoned. The gravest of these are due to manifest errors in rendering; errors, about which there could be but one opinion among biblical scholars of all religious views. Others have arisen from principles adopted and avowed by the translators themselves: as, for instance, from the unfortunate one of allowing a number of apparently equivalent English words an equal right to represent one and the same word in the original, whereby very important passages have been disguised and confused. Others again owe their source to causes which have come into operation since the version was made. Certain words have, as time has gone on, passed into new meanings. Others, which could formerly be read without offence, have now, by their very occurrence, become stumbling-blocks, and tend to remove all solemnity, and even all chance of fair audience, from the passages where they occur. Some few blemishes may also be due (and it is hardly possible altogether to put by this source) to doctrinal or ecclesiastical bias on the part of the translator. Of the various elements which were wisely united in the body of men entrusted with the preparation of our version, one was much weakened during the work by the death of two of its leading members: and some apparently forced or inconsistent renderings have been thought to be not altogether unconnected with this circumstance.
But, after all, we are asked, of what character are these blemishes. Do they, do any of them, affect points of Christian doctrine? Now let it be observed, my brethren, that this question is in itself a fallacious one. For what is Christian doctrine? Is it a hard dry tabular statement of dogmas, to be proved by a certain number of texts? or is it the conviction of the great truths expressed by those dogmas carried into the hearts and lives of men? If it be the former, then might we, according to the objector’s argument, dispense with nine-tenths of Scripture altogether. If the latter, then we can spare nothing which may make it clearer or more forcible, better apprehended or more warmly felt. I am persuaded that no one can estimate the benefit which may be done to the souls of men by casting light on any one saying of our Blessed Lord,—by making evident a sentence before obscure in the writings of prophets or apostles. And that this may be now done, done in very important instances, done with easy consent and effectually, I am also persuaded. The great principles of biblical translation have in our time engaged many able men both here and on the Continent; and to most of the passages in which our version has gone astray, our chosen revisers would come with their minds firmly made up, and ready at once to apply the remedy. With regard to some other blemishes which I ventured to mention, its application would be easier still. Few would fail to note, or be desirous to retain, an obsolete word; and in the case of expressions of the other kind, the only desire would be, while removing the offence, to leave unimpaired God’s testimony against sin, or whatever might be the solemn sense of the passage. As regards the last class of blemishes mentioned, those few which may be due to doctrinal or ecclesiastical bias, the task might seem likely to be a hard one. But I should be unwilling hastily to think this. In many such instances, the question, as it would be raised among our modern scholars, would never enter the region of opinion at all. It would be simply one of faithful and consistent rendering, to which the occurrence of the word elsewhere would furnish an easy and safe guide. I trust it may be said of the Church in our land, that the longer she lasts, the more she becomes aware of the futility of forcing into the sacred text any foregone conclusions: the more she sees the importance of keeping pure from all later alloy the water which men are to draw from the wells of salvation.
We have thus advanced in our very hasty and incomplete sketch of this subject, to the last branch of enquiry which we proposed: by whom, and how, this review of the Church’s stewardship may be carried out.
In asking “By whom?” we are in fact putting two questions: under what sanction, and by what instruments. To the former enquiry it might be answered, that inasmuch as uniformity in the use of a Scripture text is of the first importance, it would be desirable that the version when amended should be put forth by authority. But there can be little doubt that such an answer would be an inconsiderate one. The procedure would defeat the very end it has in view. On only one of the Christian bodies in this country would such authority, even if complete in her sense, be binding. And if the amended version were thus bound upon her, we should be departing from the precedent set us in the case of our present version, which, whatever might be the intention of the notice that it is “appointed to be read in churches,” appears to have made its way to universal acceptance by its intrinsic excellence, and without any binding authorisation at all. There might be various conceivable ways of undertaking the revision. It might be entrusted to a body of men selected and commissioned by the highest power in the land. Or the action might begin, as it is now beginning, with one of the religious bodies among us, and might proceed, not confined to that body alone, but extended so as to take in such of the rest as might be willing to aid. But, however undertaken, the result should be put forth to make its way simply and entirely on its merits, and as approving itself to the conscience and judgment of the Churches of Christ. And we are thus brought to answer the second member of this enquiry, By what instruments should the revision be carried out? Our last sentence has anticipated the reply. Such a work should no more be done by one section of the Christian Church than by one man. The same concurrence and conflict of thought, the same variety of experience, the same differing shades of feeling and apprehension, which render many men requisite for the work, render also many Churches requisite. There is in the lay mind a natural and well-founded distrust of men who are enlisted in the warm advocacy of particular systems: and nothing but a fair balance of the English Churches in the work would command public confidence.
And then, how should the work be done? I do not mean, by what kind of process or machinery: the necessarily arduous details would be best judged of by those engaged in it: but I mean, guided by what maxims, in accordance with what rules? The task may fairly be compared to the mending and restoration of a goodly piece of ancient mosaic-work. And such a comparison may guide us to one leading rule which should dominate the whole process. Nothing should be touched of the fair fabric which can possibly remain: and all that is of necessity new should be in strictest harmony with the old. So that the ear, while of course missing from the altered sentence the expression so long familiar, should find it superseded, not by a startling modernism, but by words worthy to stand beside those which remain. Those who are acquainted with the history of our present version will recognise in this rule the repetition of one which its compilers had before them.
On this matter, I conceive there need be no alarm whatever. Any body of English biblical scholars, with the responsibility upon them of purifying our version, would be at least as anxious to preserve its characteristic excellences as any could be, who were not so deeply aware what those excellences are. And let it be observed, that in this matter a version for public and general use would of necessity differ from such as may have been put forth for private benefit by individual scholars. In those, it may have been desired to give to the English bible-student some idea of the niceties and precise constructions of the original. In the amended version, there should be no such design, unless where our ordinary English will fully and freely admit of it: no merely grammatical changes of tense or inference, which might give awkwardness or stiffness to what was before plainly and conventionally expressed.