« PreviousContinue »
principles, and with sufficient materials, and as having been consequently employed by the greatest number of eminent critics. And certainly it is of much importance that all new collations of MSS. should be made upon the same text, whatever it might be, which had already been adopted for that purpose in the greatest number of cases. But such a view of the question does not in reality apply either to the edition of 1550, or to the present undertaking. The Elzevira text is in fact the basis on which the greatest number of collations has been made, and no new MSS. have been examined for this edition.
The Elzevir text accordingly would seem, on the principles hitherto suggested, to be a better standard than that of Robert Stephens for modern editors. Having been employed by Wetstein and Griesbach, (the text of Griesbach having also been more recently employed by Scholz,) it is therefore become the best basis for the comparison of additional MSS. ; having obtained so extensive a circulation as to have long acquired the name of “ Editio recepta," it has therefore become the most familiar to the general reader. And these advantages are so important in their nature, that a strong case would be required, to justify the adoption, whether for critical or for general purposes, of any other text. At least it would seem necessary to shew, that from the various readings, which had since been collected, a new text had arisen, more perfect in itself, and more generally approved by modern scholars.
If then it were admitted that owing to the extent to which such critical inquiries had been carried, and the skill and diligence shewn in conducting
a Michaelis, ch. 12. sect. 3, with Marsh's note, No. 1. Griesb. Symb. Crit. vol. 1. p. 192, &c.
them, no new light could be expected to be thrown hereafter upon the genuineness of the sacred record; if it were admitted that the means of knowledge already collected had been so successfully employed, as to enable scholars, however differing in their theological opinions, to agree in the approval and adoption of some one amended text, there could be little dissension or doubt respecting the future standard of the Greek Testament. But to any one acquainted with the history of this branch of sacred criticism, such a result seems now to be even more remote than formerly, when it was fondly supposed to have been attained by Bengel or Griesbach.
Now of these three methods, no one has been adopted exactly in the present work. The new arrangements of the text, which have grown out of the labours of modern critics, are none of them so free from objection, as to deserve that they should be generally followed in preference to the older editions. The text of the Elzevirs, though derived mainly from the edition of 1550, has in many instances deviated from it, in deference apparently to the authority of Beza, and in the greater number of those instances
b Wetstein observes (Proleg. p. 151.) that Elzevir did not, as Mill supposed, follow MSS., or the Complutensian, or Aldus, Colinæus, or either of the two earlier editions of R. Stephens, where he differs from the third, but solely Beza; except i Pet. 2. 21, in which verse Wetstein supposes the peculiar reading of Elzevir to be either an error of the press, or a conjectural emendation of the editor. This statement may be confirmed from the following passages : Rom. 12.11. kupiw Bez. Elz. Kaipo Erasm. 2 and 3 Steph. 1 Cor. 13. 3. ywuicw Bez. Elz. (probably a misprint in Bez.) ywuíow Erasm. 2 and 3 Steph. 2 Cor. 7. 16. oův Elz., and Phil. 1. 23. ydp Elz. These two conjunctions were avowedly added by Bez. 2 Cor. II. 1. Ti tậs αφροσυνης Elz., for: τη αφροσυνη. This change was introduced by Bez. Heb. 4. 15. TETELPAouévov Elz., for menelpajévov. This change Bez, introduced and defended. Heb. 7. 1. Oeoû ikiotov Elz., taken from Bez., where it is probably a misprint for Deoù toll Úviorov. James 4. 13. three future tenses indic. in Elz. for three subjunctives ; a
has adopted the more questionable readingc: and the edition of 1550, though generally of greater purity than the text of the Elzevirs, contains some characteristic readings, which have since been almost invariably rejected. The text therefore selected for the present edition is that which has been commonly printed at the Oxford Press, (as for instance in the years 1827 and 1830) professing to be taken exactly from the text of Mill, and therefore to accord with the edition of 1550, but varying greatly in the Apocalypse, and in some other cases where it will readily be allowed that the older readings were erroneous d. It would have been unreasonable to abandon a text, which, though not proceeding from any well-known scholar, is certainly a more perfect standard, for the purpose of restoring acknowledged errors, however eminent might be the name under which they were originally published.
The authorized version of the year 1611 does not appear to have been made from the edition of 1550, or from any other edition whatever, uniformly. And this might naturally be expected, as well from the distribution of the labour among many different translators, as from the comparative rudeness of the times. The same appears to have been the case with the Dutch translation, which, though made by public authority soon after the appearance of the Elzevir Text, was not taken exclusively from it, or from any other single original. It is generally supposed that the English Version of 1611 was derived mainly from the editions of Beza; and although the Paraphrase of Erasmus had been enjoined by authority for general use, the character of the theology prevailing when the Version was made, would certainly induce us to believe that the public opinion at that period was in favour of the expositions of Geneva. It is clear too on examination, that in & Matt. 5. 21. Luke 17. 36. Rom. 7. 6. Heb. 10. 38. our translators would have acted wisely in deserting Beza, and following the guidance of Erasmus and R. Stephens; and it may be shewn from instances " where no question of doctrine is involved, that they followed the text of Beza, without any apparent reason for doing so, except the reputation acquired by that great reformer. But it is also clear that they cautiously avoided several of the doctrinal interpretations', as in Acts 1. 14. and 14. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 4. and 4. 15. into which they would have fallen, if they had been governed by a blind respect for Beza; and in k John 3.
change first made by Bez. In James 2. 18. however, where Bez. had followed Colinæus, and written xwpis, Elz. retained the common reading ék, after the example of Erasmus and R. Stephens. Compare Masch's Le Long. Bibl. Sac. P. j. p. 226. Marsh's Mich. vol. 2. p. 853, and Griesb. Proleg. p. 42.
c For instance, Luke 17. 36. This verse was added by Beza from the Complutensian, but is rejected by Erasm. 3 Steph. and Griesb. Phil. 1. 23. Tom ydp uârnov for mom uârlov. Gal. 3. 8. eŮloynOhrovtal for evevroynonoovtat. 2 Cor. 13. 4. kal yàp kal ñueis for sal vào hueis. 2 Pet. 3. 7. Tớ avr for Tộ aToo. Jude 19. <ayTous added by Beza, omitted by others. Rom. 12. II. Kupių for kaip@. Col. 2. 13. únîv for ñuiv. 2 Thess. 3. 5. els únouovhv for els Thv ÚTopovny. Some peculiar readings in Elz. (ed. 1641), such as i Cor. 6. 14. óuās for ημάς. 2 Cor. Π. Ι. ήνείχεσθε for ανείχεσθε, are probably errors of the press.
d Such are 1 Pet. 3. 11. where two words, åyabdy, Cornodtw, are omitted in 3 Steph. probably by mistake. Acts 17. 25. where 3 Steph. reads κατά πάντα for και τα πάντα. James 5. 12. είς υπόκρισιν 3 Steph. for Úrd kploiv. The variations in the Apocal. are numerous, and in accordance generally with Beza and Elz., being better readings than those of Erasm. and 3 Steph.
e Wetstein. Proleg. p. 152.
f By an order of Council in 1547. Strype, Eccles. Mem. v. 2. p. 45. Burnet's Hist. of the Ref. v. 2. p. 55. Cartwright's Bramber: Art. Tarring. Hallam's Lit. of Eur. v. I. p. 516.
& Matt. 5. 21. Beza's note is, “ Præstat mois åpxaious explicare, quasi scriptum sit Úto Tŵv åpxalww.” Erasmus translates, “ dictum sit veteribus.” The Bishops' Bible, “to them of olde tyme.” Luke 17. 36. dúo čoovtal ¿v to åypo K.T.. Beza's note is, “ Hunc versiculum omisit Erasmus, tanquam ex Matthæo adjectum : extat tamen apud Syrum interpretem, et in Editione Complutensi, et aliquot vetustis Codicibus.” Rom. 7. 6. Beza says in his note, “Legit Chrysostomus åto avóvtos, quam lectionem ita probo ut eam reponere non dubitarim.” Erasmus translates, “liberati sumus a lege, mortui ei in qua detinebamur.” The Bishops' Bible, “ now are we delivered from the lawe, and dead unto it wherunto &c.” Heb. 10. 38. Beza's note is, “. At si quis se subduxerit'kal ¿ày ÉTooTeantai. Vulg. quod si se subtraxerit. Erasmus, et si se subduxerit.' Ego non dubito, quin kai ponatur pro årrà, ut sæpe jam annotavimus: quod ex Propheta apparet, apud quem fidelis opponitur impio.” The Bishops' Bible, “and yf he withdrawe hymselfe.” To these instances many persons would add the passage i Pet. 2.8, which Erasmus translates, “neque credunt in id, ad quod et instituti fuerant.” Of Erasmus' translation Beza says in a long note, “ quam interpretationem prorsus rejicio. Primum enim ostendimus eam causam, quæ istos adduxit ut vellent hunc locum emollire, nempe ne Deum viderentur crudelem facere, nullius est momenti.” Here the Bishops' Bible agrees with Beza.
h In Matt. 20. 23. “it shall be given” was added in deference to Beza, who objected strongly to the “continget” of Erasmus. 2 Cor. 7. 16. oův Bez. and 1611; wanting in Erasm., 3 Steph., and Griesb. Gal. 4. 17. juās recommended by Bez, in a note, and inserted in the margin of 1611; ýuâs Erasm., 3 Steph., and Griesh. James 4. 13. three future indicatives Bez. and 1611; three subjunctives Erasm., 3 Steph., and Griesb. 2 Pet. 3. 7. TQ aŭto Bez. and 1611; Tŷ aroll Griesb., aŭtoû Erasm. and 3 Steph. In all these cases, besides adopting the worse reading, the translators also deserted the Bishops' Bible, which they were enjoined to follow as much as possible.
i Campbell Dissert. v. 1. p. 501 ; Gell on the Translation of the Bible, Pref. ; and Lewis, Hist. of Translations, p. 333. Acts 1. 14. oùy yuvaigi “cum uxoribus” Beza. Acts 14. 23. Xelpotovňoavtes “ per suffragia creassent” Beza. Tim. 2. 4. trávras åv pánovs “ qui quosvis homines vult servari” Beza, who explains himself thus in a long note: “ qui hoc Pauli dictum ad singulos homines contendunt pertinere, huc delabantur necesse est, ut vel Pelagianum arbitrium hominis, vel universalem (id est, ad singulos homines pertinentem) gratiam statuant.” Tim. 4. 10. Ós cote owThp, on which Beza has this note: “ Eras. qui est servator:' quod nonnullos torsit, propterea quod servatoris nomen fere respicit vitam æternam in Christo partam. Itaque ut amphiboliam vitarem, malui conservatorem' dicere. Alludere autem videtur ad Psal. 36. 6.”
k John 3. 36. 8 dè nelOWv to viớ “ qui vero non obtemperat Filio" Beza: who explains himself thus in a note: “malui generalem notationem hujus verbi sequi quam vertere “incredulum esse.'” Erasmus translates 66 qui non credit Filio.” The Bishops' Bible,“ he that beleveth not the Sonne,” with the other translation in the margin. John 19. 31. Meyern ý ýuépa k. 7.. “ magnus dies illius sabbathi” Beza. “ Magnus dies ille sabbati” Erasmus. " That sabboth day was an high day” Bish. Bibl. Heb. 10. 2. emel ay étaúo avto, omitting oủk, Beza. Erasmus and the Bish. Bibl. retain the negative, and add a note of interrogation. Heb. 10. 34. YlvớO KOVTES & Xely év é autois “ut qui sciretis vos habere apud vos” Beza. “Scientes vos habere in vobis” Erasm. “Knowing in yourselves how that ye have" Bish. Bibl.