of the Scriptures. When Jowett issued his edition of the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, etc. (1855), the first words of his Introduction ran thus:

'No one who is acquainted with Sophocles or Thucydides in the volumes of Dindorf or Bekker, would be willing to reprint the text of those authors as it is to be found in editions of two centuries ago. No apology is therefore needed for laying aside the "Textus Receptus" of the New Testament.'

Jowett and Stanley took a short way out of the difficulty. They did not, as Tregelles and Alford were then slowly and laboriously doing, endeavour to construct a new text for themselves; they adopted that of the great German scholar Lachmann; 1 and introduced into their translations a further set of changes designed to bring the Authorised Version into harmony with Lachmann's Greek.2

In what respect, then, was Lachmann's text better than that of Erasmus, or that which bore the proud title of the 'Received'? The answer will become apparent hereafter. In order to detach the question from all misleading associations, let us consider an analogous case in another field.

The last century brought to the West the knowledge of the great religions of the East. It was disi covered that they, too, had their collections of sacred books, and the interest of scholars, once roused, sought to make them available for European

1 See below, p. 65.

Ellicott based his Galatians (1854) on Tischendorf's text, see his interesting note on p.15. He only permitted himself to depart from the A.V. 'where it appeared to be incorrect, inexact, insufficient, or obscure' (p. 20).

students. The ancient Scriptures of Buddhism, for example, containing the earliest record of the teachings of Gotama the Buddha 500 years before Christ, are estimated to contain twice as many words as our Bible.1 Nearly the whole of this vast mass of writings has been published in this country during the last five-and-twenty years. On what materials are these various texts founded? The student discovers that the books exist in the same language among the Buddhist peoples of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam, and he procures the best copies available from those distant lands. They are written upon palm leaves specially prepared, without divisions of words, in the hand-writing of the country where they are produced. When they are compared together, it is soon found that there are numerous differences among them. Peculiarities of spelling distinguish those from the contiguous regions of Burma and Siam against those from Ceylon. But more serious variations occur. Letters are accidentally dropped out; similar letters are confused; words or even clauses are omitted as the copyist's eye passes to some similar phrase on a line below, and he continues his work in ignorance of what he has overlooked. Or perhaps familiarity with partial repetitions elsewhere in the sacred books unconsciously suggests to him some other close to a sentence, some different

3

1 So Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhism, pp.18-20: he adds, 'a translation of them into English would be about four times as long.'

* In Siam, the devout liberality of the king has recently printed a Siamese text of the entire Canon.

* These, of course, vary in the several Scripts, owing to the differences of the characters.

E

ending to a religious formula; or it may be that he deliberately undertakes to harmonise divergences by reducing them to concord. In all these ways may the original text be miscopied and impaired; and the error, once set travelling, begets new mistakes through further blundering or through unsuccessful efforts at correction.

The comparison of several manuscripts soon, however, establishes certain relations among them, and the student learns to trust one more than another. As the Scriptures were originally carried to Burma and Siam from Ceylon, his tendency is first to rely on the Singhalese tradition; but it is plain that a good MS. from Burma may be of more value than a carelessly copied text from Ceylon, derived perhaps from a no less faulty antecedent. Are there any aids for restoration? The ancient commentaries, transmitted for many centuries along with the text, often embody continuous passages of it. They have their own liability to error, but this is lessened by the care and attention bestowed on the transcription of the hallowed words. There are, again, occasional quotations from the Canon embodied in postcanonical treatises, and when these can be identified, fresh support may be gained not only for the limited passage in question, but indirectly for the context or the general character of a whole manuscript. Or, lastly, one or more of the holy books may have been translated out of the ancient sacred tongue into some vernacular, and the help of a native version may be available, which, even though relatively modern,

may supply important evidence. The Commentaries, quotations, and versions, thus guide the student in the preparation of his text.

The process of determining the text of the New Testament is not dissimilar; but the materials now within reach are enormously more copious; and the principles on which they are to be employed have been only slowly elaborated by many generations of scholarship. Let us glance at some aspects of their application in both the Old Testament and the New.

II.

The scholars of the seventeenth century, standing nearer to the version of King James's translators, often showed themselves less unwilling to amend it than some of their successors in the nineteenth. As early as 1645 Dr. Lightfoot, preaching before the House of Commons, urged members to 'think of a review and survey of the translation of the Bible,' that 'the three nations might come to understand the proper and genuine study of the Scriptures, by an exact, vigorous, and lively translation.'1 Eight years later, in 1653, an order was made by the Long Parliament, and a bill was brought in 'for a new translation of the Bible out of the original tongues.' The plan was frustrated by the Dissolution, but the proposal was not dropped. On the 16th of January, 1657, the Grand Committee of Religion ordered a sub-committee to advise with Walton, Cudworth, and others, respecting translations and impressions

1 1 Quoted by Eadie, The English Bible, 1876, vol. ii., p. 344.

of the Bible. The Committee met several times at Lord Whitelocke's house, 'and had the most learned men of the Oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and diverse excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English, which yet was agreed to be the best of any translation in the world.'1

The Parliaments of the eighteenth century troubled themselves no more on the matter. But there was no lack of interest both within and without the Established Church. Two powerful impulses had been given to Biblical study, one affecting especially the Old Testament, and the other the New. The first was the publication in 1657 of Walton's great Polyglot, which set beside the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments a collection of ancient versions in Greek, Syriac, Latin, etc., and displayed, in the Old Testament particularly, many variations from the received Hebrew text. The second was due to the issue in 1707 of the New Testament by Dr. Mill, formerly Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, who became Principal of St. Edmund Hall in 1685. He reprinted the Greek text of the great French printer, Robert Estienne (or Stephens), in 1550; but he added the readings of nearly one hundred MSS., the total number of variations being reckoned at about 30,000. The work had cost him thirty years of labour; his death, a fortnight after its appearance,

1 Whitelocke's Memorials, quoted by Stoughton, Church of the Commonwealth, p. 150.