DOES THE "REVISED VERSION" AFFECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS EXHIBITED IN THE AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION? INTRODUCTION. DOES the Revised Version affect the doctrine of the New Testament? This is a momentous question. But, before we answer it, we must ask what has the Revised Version done? It has made thirty-six thousand alterations in the Authorized Translation. How is this? Have we not been told that-nay, we will not state what has been said by those who have cherished it, and loved it, and praised God for it, for nearly three centuries, for this would fill a volume; but we will state what the revisers themselves say of our Authorized Translation. Speaking of the character of our time-honoured translation, they say: "We have had to study this great version carefully and minutely, line by line, and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." And their first Resolution was, "to make as few alterations in it as possible." (Pref.) How then did thirty-six thousand alterations creep in? We are told in answer, that it was framed from very imperfect materials, and that the number of ancient MSS. of the New Testament which have been brought to light has vastly increased since it was written. It is said, indeed, that Erasmus had but sixteen MSS. while we now have 1600. We are told that the Greek text which was used by the translators of 1611, appears almost certainly to have been the fifth edition of Beza's Greek Testament, published in the year 1598; and that the variations from this. edition which are to be traced in the Authorized Translation are only about a hundred and ninety in all, and that they are comparatively of but little importance; that this fifth edition of Beza was for the most part a reproduction of the third edition of Stephanus, 1550; and that Stephanus closely followed the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in 1527; his first edition having been published in 1516, and Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian polyglot in 1522. That the materials principally used by Erasmus were for the Gospels, an inferior MS. of the fifteenth century, with occasional use of two other MSS., one of them being of considerable interest, but which was "but little used or valued;" for the Acts and Epistles a MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century; and for the Apocalypse a mutilated MS. said to be of the twelfth century, in which the text is so intermixed with the commentary of Andrew of Cæsarea, that it would have been no matter of wonder if the representation of it in his first edition had been even worse than it actually was; and that both Stephanus and Beza had access to MSS. of which two or three at least were of considerable critical value, but of which neither editor made any real or consistent use.1 If then our Authorized Translation is founded upon such weak and defective authority, we cannot be surprised at the innumerable and gross errors which it must contain; we can only be surprised at its excellence. However, let us not be deceived. The following are some of the criticisms cast upon it by advocates and supporters of the Revised Version who have written upon the subject: "clumsy, and often absurd repetition," "completely perverts the meaning," "almost unintelligible," "utterly im 1 From Dr. Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. His remarks are quoted by Dr. Roberts's Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament; by The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by Two Members of the New Testament Company; and by other writers. 99 66 possible rendering," "meaning quite obscured," "melodious glosses and mistaken interpretation," "familiar inaccuracy, and pretty-sounding error," "confuses the entire meaning of the passage," "hopelessly obscured." These are the constantly recurring criticisms of the Authorized Translation; while of the Revised Version we read: "an important light is thrown upon the passage," "a new meaning, and unquestionably a true meaning," "for the first time suggests to an English reader the true meaning," "the force of the Greek is brought out as in none of the previous versions," "a marked improvement," "how much the passage gains," "the gain is indisputable," " something to get rid of the false interpretation," " unquestionable errors exist in the Authorised Version, and it will be a practical gain to get rid of them," some were indisputable blunders, and of these the correction will be universally welcomed.” Here is a plain and clear issue for the English public. What did they desire in the new revision? Did they want truth, accuracy, humble fidelity, and the minutest care; or did they want their ears to be pleased by the retention of incorrect and familiar rhythms? Did they desire to have truth or tradition-to hear the word of God, or to be answered according to their idols? Did they want a correct sumpsimus, or their erroneous but pleasing mumpsimus?” “the Revised Version is pedantic, unmusical; yet nearer to the original and those who deny it are unreasonable and intemperate fanatics." These are some of the pleasing utterances of the new critics. Let us not suppose, however, that they have been allowed to have it all their own way. Learned writers of equal ability have risen up to defend the Authorized Translation, and to show that the errors that are complained of are on the side of the Revisers, and to prove that though there are some passages in the Authorized Translation which require amendment, we should be in a far worse condition if we accepted the Revised Version with its 36,000 alterations. They have shown that they are quite equal to take the Revisers on their own ground, and to decide the contest by authority of MSS., and versions, and by rules of grammar. Any one who has read the critical, masterly, unanswered and unanswerable articles in the Quarterly Review of October, January, and April, 1881-1882, the two letters to the Bishop of London by Canon Cook, the same learned author's Revised Version of the First Three Gospels; Dr. Malan's Plea for the Received Greek Text; and Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, must be convinced of this: while the gentle and dignified answer by two members of the New Testament company, The Revisers and the Greek Text, is no answer at all, and the ungentle and undignified invectives of another writer totally miss their mark. If the Revisers declaim against the authorities of Erasmus, these protest against the untrustworthiness of the two principal MSS. B and N, relied upon by the Revisers, and upon which the Revised Version may be said to be chiefly founded; so much so, indeed, that their work might be called, the Revised Version of the New Testament according to the MSS. B and N. Here we must entreat the reader to peruse what Canon Cook, the eminent Editor of The Speaker's Commentary, has written on the subject of these two MSS. in his Revised Version of the First Three Gospels. In Part iii., § 4, he writes "On Value of the Oldest MSS. N and B," and in the following Section, on "The Eusebian Recension." What he mentions in this Section we cannot but regard as a most interesting and remarkable discovery, and one which must have an immense influence in determining the value, not merely of these two MSS., but of what is of much more consequence, affecting, as it does, our Authorized Translation, that of the Revised Version. We can give only a meagre outline of the statement there contained, which occupies twenty-four pages, but every incident and detail there narrated is of the highest interest. The Emperor Constantine finished building his great city Constantinople in 330. Immediately after this event he wrote to Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, to get prepared for the churches which he had built fifty MSS. of the Holy Scriptures, on carefully prepared parchments or vellum, written in easily. legible characters, and to be in a portable and convenient form. The MSS. were to be written by calligraphers, beautiful penmen, thoroughly understanding their art. At the same time he tells him that he has ordered the treasurer of the province, the highest civil authority, to supply all things required for the preparation of the parchments, and he impresses upon Eusebius the duty of |