It may perhaps be thought that, inasmuch as the documents from which these Christian writings are obtained are themselves of a later date, the testimony they give to the text of Scripture is of no higher worth than that of Biblical manuscripts of the same age. The scribes, it may be said, would be influenced by the form of text then current, and in copying these writings would naturally, when Scripture quotations occurred, give them in the form with which they were familiar. To some extent this may have been the case, and the testimony of these writings is of less weight when they simply reflect the form of text which prevailed at the date when they were copied. But then, on the other hand, their testimony is for the same reason proportionally the stronger whenever they do not agree with the current form, but give a different reading. Moreover it must be remembered that in many cases the authors comment minutely upon the Scripture text, and that here their testimony is quite unaffected by any tendency on the part of the copyist to use a familiar form, the comment itself showing beyond all doubt what was the form of the text which the author was expounding. In all such places the testimony of these early writers is especially valuable.
From this mere outline of the manifold researches which scholars have made during the years that have passed since the Revision of 1611 was issued, some notion may be gathered of the extent to which our resources for the satisfactory determination of the sacred text have been multiplied. It will hence be seen how great is the confidence with which we are thereby enabled to affirm the verbal correctness of that far larger portion of the text in which our numerous and varied authorities are all agreed, and with what confidence also we can place our finger upon certain blemishes, and say that here an error has crept in through the inadvertence, or carelessness, or ignorance of the transcriber. If then there were no other reasons for the revision of the English Bible, this alone would be a sufficient ground for it. When it is in the power of any one to say that there are passages in our common Bibles which, as there given, are found in no Greek manuscript whatever, as is the case in Acts ix., the latter part of verse 5, and the beginning of verse 6; 1 Peter iii. 20; Heb. xi. 13; and Rev. ii. 20; and when there are other passages, respecting which the evidence is greatly preponderating, that they ought to have no place in the text, as is the case with Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvii. 21; Matt. xxiii. 35 (last clause); Mark xv. 28; Luke xi. 2, 4 (the last clause of each verse); John v. 3 (last clause), and 4; Acts viii. 37; Acts xv. 34; Acts xxviii. 29; Rom. xi. 6 (last clause); 1 Cor. vi. 20 (last clause); 1 Cor. x. 28 (last clause); Gal. iii. 1 (second clause); Heb. xii. 20; and 1 John v., from “in heaven,” verse 7, to “in earth,” verse 8. When these things can be said, and can be truly said, then all true lovers of the Bible will earnestly demand that they be forthwith removed.
LECTURE VIII.
THE PREPARATIONS FOR FURTHER REVISION MADE DURING THE PAST TWO CENTURIES.
It has not been left to the present generation to be the first to recognize the force of the various considerations presented in the previous lectures. The duty of providing for a further revision of the English Bible has been handed down as a solemn trust from generation to generation. Every new discovery made of Biblical manuscripts, and every fresh field of research opened up, has at once made the need of revision more apparent, and given intensity to the desire that it should be undertaken; and, in their turn, this quickened desire and this increase of material have prompted to renewed efforts in obtaining all possible subsidiary helps. In this way it has come to pass that the whole period which has elapsed since the publication of the Revision of 1611 has been in effect a time of preparation for another and further revision, and here, as elsewhere, the divine law of human discipline has been verified, that every work accomplished is but the starting-point for fresh endeavours.
In this work of preparation four distinct stages may be clearly traced: the first, that of unfriendly criticism; the second, that of premature attempts at correction; the third, that of diligent research and patient investigation; and the fourth, that of widespread conviction of the desirableness of further revision, and the discussion of the plans by which it may best be accomplished.
From the very first the new version had to undergo an ordeal of criticism, springing sometimes from personal pique, sometimes from party prejudice, sometimes from a one-sided attachment to a favourite doctrine, the evidence for which seemed to be obscured by the rendering given to certain passages. Almost immediately upon the publication of the volume, a violent attack was made upon it by Hugh Broughton, who, though a man of immense erudition, and one of the best Hebraists of the day, was of so overbearing a temper that his offer to aid in the revision had been declined. Broughton declared that the version was so ill done that it bred in him a sadness which would grieve him whilst he breathed. “Tell his Majesty,” he passionately said, “that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged on poor churches.”
In the sharp controversies of the Commonwealth period the slight indications given by the version of a certain ecclesiastical bias were unduly exaggerated. Charges of a direct prelatic influence were freely made, and various rumours were circulated, as if upon good authority, that Archbishop Bancroft had taken upon himself to introduce alterations in opposition to the judgment, and even the protest of the translators. Influenced probably by the feeling thus awakened, though not sharing it, Dr. John Lightfoot, in a sermon preached before the Long Parliament on August 26th, 1645,[92] expressed the hope that they would find some time among their serious employments to think of a “review and survey of the translation of the Bible.” “And certainly,” he added, “it would not be the least advantage that you might do to the three nations, if they, by your care and means, might come to understand the proper and genuine reading of the Scriptures by an exact, vigorous, and lively translation.”