INTRODUCTION. THE primary object of a translation is to express the exact meaning of the original in corresponding words, so far as they can be found in English, with the least obscurity. It should be literal rather than paraphrastic, giving the sense intended by the author or authors simply and fully, in the best terms which the English language supplies. A translation of the New Testament should be in effect a revision. of the received one; and the departures from the latter ought to be as few as the necessities of the case require. King James's version should be corrected and improved in such instances only as appear to call for change. The main purpose of a translation of the Bible is not that it may be read with pleasure, but rather that it may clearly express the true sense. The present version is founded upon the received one ; the deviations being caused by another Greek text and the desire of greater accuracy. Besides adhering to a critical text, the translator had to correct the mistakes of the common English Testament, as well as to improve it by bringing it closer to the original. Various considerations prompted his departures from the venerable version; but none was dictated by mere love of change. A desire to express the original sense better lay at the root of all. A paraphrastic or elegant version was not the translator's object. It is well said in the "Guesses at Truth" of the brothers Hare, "a literal translation is better than a loose one, just as a cast from a fine statue is better than an imitation of it. For copies, whether of words or things, must be valuable in proportion to their exactness. In idioms alone, as a friend remarks to me, the literal rendering cannot be the right one." The translator has endeavoured to present the English reader with a more correct text and translation. He gives a much better text than the usual one, and a revision of the received version. Such are the two things he professes to have accomplished. They are worthy of labour in proportion to the importance attaching to writings which guide and strengthen man's spiritual life. It is a great advantage to a translator to have one text only before him and to reproduce it as well as he can in another language. He can pursue one object without distraction. If the text he has selected be that of a competent scholar who has spent many years in collating ancient manuscripts and comparing their readings, his responsibility is lessened; he has but to follow his chosen guide. Little faith can be put in a diplomatic text. A man who has not studied the best manuscripts with care; who takes their readings merely from the collations of others, and whose chief business has not been textual criticism, may construct a text for himself; but it will not inspire confidence nor commend itself to the scholar. The making up of a text during any revision of the received English version can result in nothing else than a mixed production having no distinctive character. Some readings will be eastern, others western; some very old, others comparatively modern, after a judgment which, however good generally, will show traces of distraction or haste when directed to textual criticism and translation at the same time. This will happen the more frequently in proportion to the number of persons employed on one version, especially if the majority of them have been chosen, among other things, because they hold the creed belonging to most of the Churches, or represent the latter in one way or other. It is an unsatisfactory procedure to select now one reading, now another; to follow one critical edition on one occasion and another on a different one, according to the views or tastes which may chance to prevail. A mixed text originating in this way will colour any translation, and lessen its distinctiveness; for if the basis be fluctuating, how can the superstructure be different? The great matter to be kept in view in any revision of the English version claiming to be thorough or national is to entrust it to scholars of national repute and tried fairness, whatever be their theological opinions; not to the selected of a clerical body or committee whose bias can hardly fail to appear throughout the work they undertake, though the individual members may be most honourable. The latest critical text of Von Tischendorf is confessedly the best.* It is the only one that has respect throughout to the Sinaitic MS.; the only one that has benefited by the true readings of the Vatican MS. which are presented in the "Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, etc., 1867," and the fac-simile edition of Vercellone, published at Rome in 1868; instead of following the imperfect collations of Mico, Rulotta, Bartolocci, and Birch. Not to speak of its critical apparatus, which is decidedly superior to that of any other, being fuller, more accurate, more impartial, the text founded upon the copious materials is nearer the original. Von Tischendorf's principle is substantially that of Bentley and Lachmann, viz., to seek the most ancient text in the oldest MSS., versions, and Fathers, and to reproduce it as accurately as possible. For this purpose he has relied on Alexandrine and Latin rather than Asiatic and Byzantine materials; first of all on the two oldest MSS. & and B, with the Curetonian Syriac and the MSS. of the old Latin having an unrevised text; The title is "Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem isagogicam praetexuit Constantinus Tischendorf. Editio octava." It appeared in Lieferungen or parts, the first being issued in 1864, the eleventh and last in 1872. besides Origen and Tertullian; next on A, C, D, the Vulgate, Peshito, and others. The main stress is laid upon antiquity. But this is subject to limitations. Where the oldest authorities are discordant, various considerations must be attended to, such as, whether a reading be peculiar to a MS., whether it seems to have proceeded from a learned man, or whether it is the mistake of a copyist. In these cases suspicion is strong against it; while the reading which may have most easily given rise to the others, which is consonant with the Greek usage proper to the N. T. writers, and in the manner of an individual author, claims the preference. Within this department of probability and beyond it there are many things which bear upon critical decisions. Antiquity may therefore be modified to a considerable extent, for the true reading may be in younger MSS. or versions. He that follows antiquity absolutely or incautiously may miss the best readings at certain times. It is possible that a reading may be best attested, without being original. Von Tischendorf, however, has not allowed himself to be carried away by mere antiquity, though he sees the paramount value of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., as well as that of the old Latin in a, b, c, d2, i, m, n, etc. He has allowed other considerations their due influence. Long experience had made him cautious in textual criticism. That he does not necessarily follow readings best attested may be seen from the Epistle to the Hebrews iv. 2, where σvукƐкƐρаσμέσυγκεκερασμένους is in A, B, C, D, and the singular συνκεκερασμένος in R. The plural is therefore sanctioned by a preponderance of authority. Yet he has the singular in the text; and the sense seems to demand it. In like manner the reading ó μovoyevns Oεòs, the only-begotten God, in John i. 18, has the weight of ancient authority in its favour, &, B, C, etc., but internal considerations overrule this and speak for the received, the only-begotten son, which Von Tischendorf upholds. Perhaps he might have carried the limitation of ancient testimony farther in some cases, as in Luke xxii. 19, 20, "This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you"]; where the words bracketed are hardly original. We shall now adduce a few readings which Von Tischendorf has adopted, though none of the recent critical editors has done so. He omits the last verse of John's Gospel, on the authority of the Sinaitic MS., a prima manu,* aided by internal reasons; the hyperbole being foreign to the character of the appendix or twenty-first chapter. It is even out of harmony with the gospel itself, whose language is often symbolical, but not exaggerated except in one instance (chap. x. 8); where the language is so sweepingly universal, that Tholuck himself is dissatisfied with the many attempts to explain it in harmony with Christ's character. The omission or insertion of a reading on the sole authority of the Siniatic MS. is a rare thing, however, with Von Tischendorf; for when he edits a reading belonging to N alone of the uncials, it has commonly the support of one early Father at least, or of the codex of a version. Thus in John vi. 51, where the new text reads "if one eat of my bread," it is supported by Cyprian and Hilary, as also by a, e, of the old Latin; and in the same verse, "the bread which I will give for the life of the world," etc., has Tertullian in its favour as well as m. So, too, in John xiii. 10 the Sinaitic reading is supported by Origen and several Latin codices. In Mark i. 1, where the MS. omits "Son of God," it has the countenance of Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, etc., not to speak of two cursive Greek MSS. agrees with B or the Vatican, the reading is strongly attested; as the latter is a most weighty witness, superior perhaps to any other; but both may be wrong, or one of them may be right. Internal considerations sometimes outweigh a majority of external witnesses. Hence it is somewhat hazardous to expunge the words "in Ephesus א When * The idea that the copyist himself, not a corrector or second person, wrote the usual final verse, was effectually disposed of by Von Tischendorf in his prolegomena to the "Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, etc., etc., 1865,” pp. xxxviii., xxxix. |
