Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    December 17, 1929

    The Carefulness of Bible Revisers

    WWP

    W. W. Prescott

    In this article William W. Prescott tells some of the methods and with what great care the various revisions of the Scriptures have been made. It is also interesting to note that all revisions have been opposed by a few ultraconservatives.

    [Signs of the Times, December 17, 1929, The Story of Our Bible, Part 3, pp. 6, 7, 9]

    In Reviewing the history of the reception accorded to the various editions of the Bible since the days of the apostles, I have noted some experiences that clearly indicate the attitude of conservative scholars toward any change in the particular translation to which they had become accustomed. This disinclination to discard the old for a new rendering is not at all surprising, and has doubtless served as a safeguard against too radical changes in the various revisions that have been made.SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.1

    CONSENSUS OF OPINION DEMANDED

    One of the rules adopted by the committee of the revision that resulted in giving us the Authorized Version, and also of the committee that has more recently revised that revision, was that no change should be made in the text unless authorized by a two-thirds vote, and that no reading should be noted in the margin unless authorized by a majority vote. It would, of course, follow that a rendering that was approved by even 60 per cent of the revisers would fail to be adopted, and such a rule might be condemned by many who could not be counted as radical critics, but with such a rule enforced there arises in consequence a probability amounting almost to certainty that the changes actually made would be fully warranted by the carefully sifted evidence. It by no means follows that the same degree of certainty attaches to translations or revisions made by individuals or small groups on their own responsibility. Such work must be vindicated by its inherent merit in each particular case.SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.2

    THE SCHOLARLY JEROME

    Perhaps the earliest instance of a scholarly revision was that of the Old Latin by Jerome, which was made at the close of the fourth century. His translation of the Old Testament and his revision of the New Testament “encountered much opposition, which greatly irritated his temper and betrayed him into contemptuous abuse of his opponents, whom he styled ‘bipedes asellos’ [little asses with two feet]. But by inherent virtues, rather than by external authority, it passed into such current use that in the eighth century it was the Vulgate, the common version, in the Western churches.”—Schaff. This case of emphatic, and perhaps unreasonable, criticism of a scholar’s faithful work in seeking to provide a better edition of the Bible is not an isolated one. The history of revisions from the time of Tyndale down to our day furnishes further illustrations of the same attitude, two of which I shall now mention.SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.3

    OPPOSITION TO KING JAMES VERSION

    When the Authorized, or King James, Version appeared in 1611, Hugh Broughton, an outstanding scholar of his time, who was not made a member of the committee on revision because of his peculiar temperament, was greatly stirred. He gave vent to his feelings in a letter to “a right worshipful knight, attendant upon the king,” James I, from which the following extract is taken: “The late Bible was sent me to censure, which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe. It is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches.”SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.4

    Such was the decided preference of the common people for the earlier translations to which they had become accustomed that it required a full half century before the new translation, the Authorized Version, supplanted them; but in spite of Broughton’s very severe criticism and his willingness to sacrifice himself to prevent the circulation of this latest product of English scholarship, the good judgment of English-speaking Christendom in due time prevailed. For more than two centuries the Authorized Version was the standard Bible for English readers in all parts of the world.SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.5

    In view of the facts that I have just recited it will not unduly startle my readers to be told that the English Revised Version, issued in 1881 and 1884, was subjected to strong criticism. Perhaps the most bitter opposer was John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, who made what has been designated as “his savage attack” upon it. He was ably assisted by Mr. E. Miller, who survived him and continued his work. These two scholars presented to the public the results of their critical studies in several books dealing with the different phases of the main question, and made the most determined effort to discredit the work of the revisers. In view of the importance of the issue at stake, and of the scholarly way in which these men prosecuted their work by collating and examining a large number of manuscripts, it seems advisable to notice here the estimate placed upon the foundation and the method of their criticism by later textual critics. I will submit an extract from a book by a recognized English scholar:SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.6

    “The propositions upon which Burgon and Miller based their defense of the traditional text, reduced to their simplest form, are two in number: (1) that the universal acceptance of it by the church from the fourth century to the nineteenth is in itself proof of its superiority, since the church must have been divinely guided in its dealings with the sacred word of God; (2) that, apart from such considerations, it can be shown to be both older and intrinsically better than its rival, which they call the ‘neologian’ text...SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.7

    NO UNIFORMITY PRESERVED

    “The selection of the traditional type of text by the church was gradual and informal, and therefore cannot claim the sanction of a deliberate decree. Nor is the argument that God would certainly secure the preservation of the true form of His word much more pertinent. We may indeed believe that He would not allow His word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man’s salvation to be lost or obscured; but the difference between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus (the basic text of the Authorized Version). It is, moreover, a perversion of the facts of history to speak of the text of the Scriptures as preserved in a uniform shape from the fourth century to the present day, as the argument of Burgon requires. While the substance of the sacred text, and its general type, have been so preserved, a very great amount of variation in detail has been admitted. The manuscripts of the Greek Testament differ considerably from one another. The manuscripts of the Vulgate [the Latin translation] differ from those of the Greek Testament, and have suffered even more corruption among themselves. We have seen in an earlier chapter how the history of the Vulgate text is one of widespread depravation and of repeated attempts at restoration. The Syriac and Coptic texts, again, differ in many particulars from both Greek and Latin. Still more great and deep-seated is the difference in the text of the Old Testament. The text of the Septuagint, which was and is the Bible of the Greek-speaking churches, differs widely from the Masoretic Hebrew. In short, the first of Burgon’s main propositions is neither convincing a priori nor in fact reconcilable with history. History makes it clear that God in His wisdom has permitted great deviations in the tradition of the sacred text through the frailty of its human trustees, though always so that its substance was not lost or seriously endangered.SITI December 17, 1929, page 6.8

    EARLY MANUSCRIPTS MORE RELIABLE

    “Dismissing, then, the a priori argument that the church would certainly be divinely guided in her choice of a text, we are forced to deal with the problem in accordance with the established principles of textual science. Here, too, Burgon and Miller claim a verdict, and that principally on the ground of the enormous numerical preponderance of witnesses in their favor. Again and again they contrast the hundreds of manuscripts found upon the one side with the mere handful which is opposed to them, and to which modern editors have almost unanimously pinned their faith. ‘Is it likely,’ says Burgon, ‘is it in any way credible, that we can be warranted in rejecting the testimony of (suppose) 1490 ancient witnesses, in favor of the testimony borne by (suppose) ten?’ ‘What’ asks Mr. Miller, ‘would an editor of Sophocles do under such circumstances?’ The answer to this query is simple. He would do precisely as Hort and the majority of editors have done. There are about 104 MSS. of Sophocles; yet the evidence of a very large majority of these is wholly disregarded by all editors. One manuscript (L, in the Laurentian library at Florence) is of predominant authority; two others are of considerable value; the rest have little independent worth but only support one or other of the leaders, or diverge into palpable error. ... So, in fact, with every other classical author; in every case where any considerable number of MSS. exists, it is found that nearly everything depends upon a few leading authorities, all the rest being relegated to the background and consulted only under special circumstances.SITI December 17, 1929, page 7.1

    “When, therefore, Burgon and Miller condemn the modern editors of the New Testament, from Lachman [1831] to Hort, for their preference of a few generally early MSS. and versions to the great mass of later authorities, they are in fact impugning the universally accepted principles of textual criticism. The earliest printed texts of the classical authors were in nearly all cases based upon comparatively late manuscripts, because these were the most numerous and accessible at the time; but scientific criticism has uniformly shown that the texts so obtained were unsound, and that recourse must be had to a select group of a few authorities, generally those of earliest date. In some instances a single manuscript is held to outweigh all its rivals, except where it is manifestly corrupt.”-“Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, K. C. B., F. B. A., second edition, pp. 316-320.SITI December 17, 1929, page 7.2

    (Continued on page 9)

    (Continued from page 7)

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents