f > * *■ NEW TESTAMENT REVISION. BY MAURICE S. BALDWIN, CANON OP CHRIST CHURCH CATUEDAAL, MONTREAL. REPRINTE7J FROM , ''CHRISTIAN OPINION AND EEYISIONIST," ^ LONDON, ENGLAND. .=' r ', - ' ^ ■ f' Hv:«, . MONTREAL: '"^7'/ JOHN LOVELL & SON, PEENTEES. 1382. .-/ i ) :■■■ I t , ' ^ V.,,;-; '..> •y' Vf^'- ,:.;.c, NEW TESTAMENT REVISION. The Revised Version of the New Testament, now offered to the public, will be hailed by at least tho most earnest students of the Bible with devout thankfulness and joy. We say by these, for witli them the desire to possess the actual words of the inspired original is infinitely graater than their respect, however profound, for the Authorized Version of 1611 ; and therefore they prefer to part with the old, great though the pain of separation may be, in order to obtain a translation which, though not perfect, more accurately expresses the meaning of the original Greek. From the hands therefore of such, if from none others, the Revisers may expect not only justice but grati- tude, and if, under the storm of abuse and adverse criti- cism with which their patient labors have been assailed, they are tempted to despond, they will do well to remem- ber that cold and biting is the east wind that has uniformly blown on the initiation of every good and elevating work, and therefore these present trials, however harsh and depressing, are only in accordance with the rugged exper- ience of the past. In illustration of the above, we may mention the case of Jerome, who when he gave to the Church and the world his great work, consisting of an original translation into Latin of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, was met, not by the gratitude of his age, but by a perfect tempest of vilification and abuse. I'hat the old Itala version, which up to the time of his translation was the sole form in which the Scriptures were accessible to the Latin world, was hopelessly corrupt, must have been known to many : yet, imperfect and misleading as it was. the mass preferred it to the new, and actually stigmatised the laborious translator as an enemy and not a friend to the Church. Another factor in the opposition of to-day is a feeling we must all profoundly respect : we refer to that deep reverential regard which multitudes have for the very words of our English Bible. In its chaste and rhythmical language they first learned at the knees of those now de- parted the love of God and of His doings towards the children ofmer. Its various chapters have from time to time been committed to memory, and now in older years, as they think of God, the words of the venerable text come back to them, and any change seems repulsive. Much, however, as we respect such a sentiment, and reluctantly as we would make any change, yet surely truth must be paramount to every other consideration, and therefore the changes which critical accuracy demands ought most certainly to be made. And here be it remarked that, with regard to the Authorized Version, it was simply a question whether it would be revised, and that speedily, or be practically supplanted by other versions. So earnest in the present day is the desire on the part of Biblical students to know the exact words of inspiration, and so determined are they to have the most advanced translation, that already in many instances they had laid aside the Authorized Version fur the more accurate renderings of Alford, Lightfoot, and Ellicott. Had therefore the work of revision been further delayed the inevitable result would have been that the various Christian bodies would have translated the Scriptures for themselves, and then the prospect of a common accepted version would have become utterly hopeless. Such a catastrophe has happily been avoided, and therefore an additional reason is afforded why we should be thankful for the issuing of the present version ,.^ _ ., ^. _.,:,./. ^:,\. ,., ;,,;,^. In estimating the value of the work before us it is absolutely necessary to consider some of the difficulties of the Revisers in the way of obtaining a text. If it be suid that this was an easy task compared with what it was in A.D. 1611, we answer that, if the translators then found their work comparatively light, that facility arose from their not being bewildered, as our scholars are, M'ith an innnense variety of codices, and variations now reckoned by thousands. The textus receptus of 1611 was built up almost wholly on the authority of cursive MSS., and they not of the most ancient date ; while of the five gi'eat uncials that now sway the opinion of scholars only D was faintly known, and this, for some reason or other, was almost passed by. To-day we have no less than 1,760 manuscripts, including two uncia. ? of unspeakable value of the 4th century, and two, if not three, of the 5th. The varieties in reading at the time when the Authorized Version was made were comparatively few, while to-day they are reckoned at 120,000. Such then being the facts of the case, the ques- tion arose, How were they to decide ? Were they to accept wholly the text of some modern and competent scholar, or were they to make out a text for themselves as they ad- vanced in the work of revision ? They chose the latter of these two alternatives, and therefore by so much increased the difficulties of the work before them. Karl Lachmann's text claimed their respect and pressed for acceptance ; but this work, however meritorious in its bold originality, is considered by competent scholars to be too exclusively the reproduction of the four great uncials to entitle it to be regarded as an absolutely correct representation of the inspired text. A similar charge may be made against the text of Tischendorf, which, though built up on a much wider range of MSS., is yet made to be the text of the Sinaitic codex, for which the great scholar had a strong but very natural leaning. There still remained, however, the most comprehensive text of all, that of Dr. Tregelles, a perfect triumph of unceasing labor and accurate critical aoholarship. Yet this could not sut'sfy all, for the simple reason that judgments differ, and therefore all advanced critics prefer moking out a text for themselves. Such heing the case, tiie lievisers had the herculean task before them of discriminating as to the value of 120,000 varia- tions in the text itself, beside the further labor of translation ; and that they have done their work so wisely and so well must be not only a matter of devout thankful- ness but also an earnest tliat if further revision be thought necessary it will be conducted in the same impartial and critical manner. Let us now briefly examine some of the rather serious changes the Revisers have made in the text ; for as these are the subject of the greatest animadversion, they naturally call for our first consideration. In Luke ix. 55 we miss the familiar words, 'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' These readings, however, are wanting in A B C ^f , while D, the least valuable of the five great uncials, has only the first clause, thus proving that no authority exists for their insertion in the text, that is, if the evidence of the great uncials be considered supreme. The first clause is found in K, a MS. of the 9th centuiy, M of 10th, U of the 10th, AH of the 9th ; in the Yulgute and some versions. In the face of these facts the Revisers could hardly do otherwise, and therefore we must acquiesce in their judgment. • The omission rf the Doxology in our Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 13, is keenly felt by all, and therefore demands special notice. St. Luke omits the words altogether. A and C, being defective here, are of no value in the ques- tion. B D Ji^ and the palimpsest Z, a remarkable codex of the 6th century, all omit the words. Codex Regius, or L, a most valuable uncial variously assigned to the 7th and 8th centuries, contains the words, as do all the later uncials. 1 Codex 33, the queen of the cursives, has the passage ; while of the versions, the Old Latin and Vulgate omit, while the Syriac and most of the Egyptian versions, in a more or less altered form, retain it. Thus we see that documentary evidence in favor of the passage is very slight. Origen, a.d. 230, and Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d. 350, both are silent ; while Chrysostom quotes the words as genuine. Finally, in the opinion of such men as Tis- chendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, Scrivener, Alford, and many German and English scholars, the words are spurious, and therefore we must conclude that the Revisers were fully justified in expunging the words from the text. Among minor omissions, we may observe the total sup- pression of the word 'fasting* from four passages: (1) Matt. xvii. 21, where the whole verse, ' Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,' is omitted by B and 1^ , (2) Mark ix. 29, the new version reads, ' This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer,' * And fasting * omitted because wanting in B and ^ ; (3) Acts x. 30, here, instead of * Four days ago I was fasting until this hour,' the New Version reads, ' Four days ago, until this hour, I ' was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in ray house,' which is the reading of three of our best manuscripts, viz. B C >^, and is that approved of by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort ; (4) 1 Cor. vii. 5, here, instead of ' That ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer,' the Eevised Version simply reads, ' That ye may give yourselves unto prayer.* The truth is, the word 'fasting' has here no authority whatever, at least worthy of the name, and is only another proof of the strong tendency there was in the past to tam- per with the word of God and make it harmonize with the ascetic spirit of the age. We may notice also the disap- . pearance of the words, ' And Philip said: If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,' &c., as being wholly unsupported ; as also the words, ' Who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit/ Rom. viii. 1. In nothing do we see the value of the revision more clearly than in the bold- ness with whicli the Keviaers have treated the text ; for while being conservative to a fault they have brought all readings, however familiar and cherished, to the touchstone of documentary evidence, and then abolished or sustained them according as they stood tho test. From alterations in tlie text we will pass on to notice improvements in grammar, and the more accurately we do so the more clearly will we see the immense superiority of the new over the old translation. Indeed it could hardly be otherwise, for the scholars of to-day enjoy the fruits of over two hundred years close study of the Greek and Hebrew languages. The science of philology is better understood, while the principles which guided the Greeks in the use of participles, finite verbs, and prepositions have been illuminated by the labors of Curtius, Winer, Buttmann, and others ; and when we consider that the present state of Greek scholarship was represented on the Board of English Eevisers by such men as EUicott, Light- foot, Moulton, Scrivener, and Hort, and on the American by Thayer, Abbott, Short, and Hodge, an immense advance in critical accuracy was only one of the many results which might confidently be anticipated. Beginning with the tenses, we may say without exaggeration that the Eevisers have literally restored the aorist, and at last given it the place assigned by aspiration. A notable instance of this may be seen in Eph. ii. 5, 6, where the Authorized Version presents us with a succession of perfects instead of the aorists of the original. In the amended version the gain is unspeakable, for now we have not onlj'' the advan- tage of accuracy, but the exhibition of a great spiritual truth, hidden by the old translation. This, of course, will be most apparent to those who understand the full force of the aorist: a tense which always indicates a definite and specific act and not a state. Thus we can appreciate the change from • God . . . hath quickened us together with 9 ,,-■■*, Christ, and hath raised us up together,* to ' God . . . • quickened us together with Christ and raised us with Him.' In the first instance the idea conveyed is that of a present state of enjoyment arising out of completed past action, whereas in the second our attention is culled to the fact that our whole salvation, from uuion with Christ in death to session with Him in glory, is regarded as already fully accomplished by that one great act of God by which we are made His sons. In other words, the moment when we by faith accepted Christ, at that moment did we also judicially die with Him ; then were we quickened ; then raised ; then made to sit with Him in glory. Indeed, to obscure the force of the Pauline aorist is not only a great grammatical error, but it is the elimination of one of the strong points in the Apostle's teaching : it is to hide the ever-recurring fact, that while the believer ie to work out his own salvation in fear and trembling, he is yet judicially regarded as rejoicing in all the benefits of accomplished redemption — as having not only died and risen again, but as being already seated in heavenly places in the person of his perfect Eepreseniative. Similarly o'iTmg aive^Avofiev (Eom. vi. 2), instead of being anslated, ' We that are dead,' an expression which implies a state of death, now correctly appears as ' We who die,' a sentence which points to a definite act. So, too, the aorists, awETd&Tjuev, awearavpM?/, kdavaTu&TjTE, in the same epistle, have been rescued from their former oblivion and made to express the exact language of the Apostle. Before, however, we leave the subject, two striking passages ought to be noticed. First, Eom. V. 12. Here the Authorized Version reads, * And so death passed upon all men, for that all houve sinned.' The latter clause is intended to represent the following Greek, £^' v' ndvTuq ^/laprov, which, SO far from doing, simply destroys its force ; which is, not that death permeates mankind on the ground of each man's personal transgression, but that all sinned in Adam. Secondly, 2 Cor. v. 4, * If one died for 10 all, then were all dead.' The second clause of this sentence is the Authorized tramlation of the following Greek, apa ol Travrtf aire^avov. Here also the English utterly fails to give the Apostle's meaning, which is, not that the family were all in a state of death, but that all believers did with the Redeemer die. Tiyovev is no longer translated, * was done, ' tut appears in its proper dress as a perfect, an improvement which may be noted in many perfects which formerly did duty as aorists. As regards the present, a tense to which our translators had strong objections, at least in some con- nections, the Revisers have earned our gratitude by restor- ing it to its proj5er place. The obliteration of the present in the Epistle to the Hebrews was a special injustice, inas- much as it was not only faulty in grammar, but it hid from the reader the transparent fact that the Epistle was written while the Temple was yet standing. As an example of this, let us turn to the ninth chapter, where in the sixth verse we read, 6la navrog eiaiaaw ol lepeig, transi dated, ' the priests went always.' In the next verse, 6 npoatjiipei vnep iavrov is rendered, ' which he offered for himself.' While a little further on, npoaipipovrai appears as ' were offered,' and so throughout the Epistle, presents are compelled to appear as aorists, and this for no other reasoL. than that the translators thought the accurate rendering of the present inadmissible. • ^ t , > • t Passing by the enormous advantages obtained by a due observance of the article, we vould notice the use of the preposition in the revised edition. In Elom. vi. 23 the Authorized Version reads, * But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' In this case * through is given as the equivalent of h ; but, by the proper ren- dering of the word, we not only do justice to the word, but we alter the meaning of the verse : the gift of God is — eternal life in Christ ; not mpvely life to be obtained through Him, but life in Him. How faulty, too, are such renderings as la t^v TrandSoaiv vfiuv, ' By yc ir tradition ' ; Jw 11 rbv Uyoi), ' Throufjh the word ' ; kKi tuv ve rightly or wrongly, consider to be its faults. Under this heading we will examine a few of those passages where a totally wrong sense is, in our judgment, given by the Revisers. We select first, as being most objectionable, 2 Tim. iii. 16, where we meet the words mlaa ypa^fj ■^eoKvevaroi ml o)(pi?.tfiog irpvg di()acKa?icav, corrcctly rendered by the Authorized Ver- sion, -All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine/ The translation now given is, ' Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching.' Now we are quite aware that this rendering has the approval of Alford, EUicott, and other acknow- ledged scholars, and that these critics quote in support of their translation the authority of Origen, the Syriac and Vulgate versions ; and, of course, if thei?" evidence be supreme, we have nothing further to say. Any one, however, who examines the writings of either Alford or Ellicott will observe the hesitancy with which they, but especially Alford, give their opinions. Alford says : * I own on the whole the balance seems to me to incline nn the side of (2), unobjectionable as it is in construction, and of the two better suited to the context, I therefore follow it, hesitatingly, I confess.' Whether the passages he adduces as similar, and therefore as justifying his render- 12 ing, are really so, we must leave to the judgment of his readers; to our mind they are alien, and we would challenge the Revisers to produce one really similar passage translated, either by them or by others, as they have this one in question. The truth is, none can be found ; and therefore we now produce (after Tregelles) two texts which, if rendered after the manner of our Revisers, would give a meaning self-evidently wrong. ' ' ''• 2 Tim. ili. 16 : Tiaaa Ypa(j>fi dednvcvaroq Koi u(pt-2.ifiog, k.t,2.. Heb. iv. 13 ; Ildi>Ta 6i yvfiva koX TFrpaxv'^t'^/J^''^ TO'f o