25 NOVEMBER 1871, Page 18

DR. LIGHTFOOT ON REVISION.*

'Dion who want to see the case for " Revision " fairly stated by a Biblical scholar whose learning, scholarship, and sound judg- ment invest hiin with the highest authority, cannot do better than consult this volume. We should say that it is 'unanswerable,' did we not know that there are men, nowhere more plentiful than in the domain of theology, who can answer anything ; who will argue, for instance, for the authenticity of the " three-witnesses'" text, and who, in fact, are set by a serene ignorance of all the conditions of the controversy above the reach of conviction. No genuine inquirer then, we venture to say, will read Dr. Lightfoot's essay without being satisfied that there is a great and necessary work before the "New Testament Company" of Revisers, and few but those who have professionally studied the subject will fail to have their views enlarged as to how great and how necessary this work is.

Dr. Lightfoot begins by boldly dealing with the question of the text. A revision of the text is not, indeed, professedly a part of the work which the" New Testament Company" has undertaken ; but, as a matter of fact, they will have to do something not unlike it. They must have a text from which to translate, and, therefore, in passage after passage will have to decide on questions of readings. Happily, however, there is nothing very alarming in the prospect. if the Textas Receptas will often have to be modified, it will be because it has no sort of claim to the authority which it has con- trived to acquire. The use of it, indeed, in these days, when the apparatus of criticism has been so vastly enlarged by the labours and discoveries of more than three centuries, is as absurd as it would be to employ the observations of astronomers who had not the advantage of the telescope. But no radical change will be needed. It is, indeed, something like a pious fraud to assert, as we have seen asserted, that the text of the New Testament has been preserved, as it were miraculously, from variation. A glance * Oa a Fred, IMelsion of the Env,' laS Nov) Te,siament. By J. A. 1.4glatfool, LOmlon: Macmillan. 1871. at an edition which gives the various readings will quite satisfy any inquirer on that point ; but that it is corrupt, as, for instance, the text of the Stwlices is corrupt, is equally false. A specially interesting chapter in the volume before us points out the advantage, which, rather than any possible loss, may be expected front this part of the work. " It is my conviction," says Dr. Lightfoot, emphatically, " that a study of the history and condition of the Greek text solves far more difficulties than it creates." A very happy instance of this is afforded by the title of '6 The Epistle to the Ephesians." The epistle itself is thoroughly Pauline in tone, but it has been objected to it with great force that, considering the long residence of the writer in the city of which it bears the name, it is unnaturally barren of all personal allusions. To this objection textual criticism supplies the only possible answer. It was called, we find, by a writer of the second century "An Epistle to the Laodiceans " ; a writer of the third century has not the words "to the Ephesians " in his copies ; a writer of the fourth century declares them to be absent from the oldest MSS. So we come to the conclusion that it was a circular letter addressed to several Churches, among which, were Ephesus and Laodicea. And so also we understand what St. Paul meant when he told the Colossians to read what in our version is called "The Epistle from Laodicea," that is, the epistle which they would get from Laodicea. Laodicea, it will be remembered, was close to Colossae, and would be the natural place to go to for the letter in question, Ephesus itself being about a hundred miles distant. The only question is why Colossal, as belonging to the eame circle of Churches, should not have had a copy of its own ?

From the question of readings Dr. Lightfoot passes on to the larger subject of renderings, which he divides under heads,— " Artificial Distinctions Created," "Real Distinctions Obliterated," "Faults of Grammar," "Faults of Lexicography," &c. Under the first head he has collected some surprising examples, which, as he says, "might be multiplied many times." He says ;— "Why, for instance, should we read in Matthew xviii. 33, Shouldest not thou also have had compaeson (Aaidat) on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity (0.blarc) on thee;' or in xx. 20, Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children (ui.c4) with her sons (utE'oli);' or in xxv. 32, He shall separate (ricropia) them one from another, as a shepherd divideth (arbopitt) his sheep from the goats?' Why in S. John xvi. 1, 4, 6, should r"dfinc %eXriX,Ixot kte,h, be rendered in three different ways in the same paragraph; 'These things have I spoken unto you,' 'These things have I told you,' I have said these things unto you;' or S. Thomas be made to say 'Pat thy finger,' and 'Thrust thy hand' in the same verse, though the same Greek word g4Xte stands for both (xxi. 25)? Why, again, in the Acts (xxvi. 24, 25) should Festus cry, 'Paul, thou art beside thyself' (tectivei, Haas), and S. Paul reply, '1 am not mad, most noble Festus' (06 Porthopas, xparkrt clq0"71)? Why in the Epistle to the Romans (x. 15) should- a erase 767e) eke,- yse4othileav g1p4vnv, TE:JV sLayeirx,c0earee, r ayam be translated the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things?' Why in the same epistle (xv. 4, 5) should we read 'That we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures (aidt rs boropm(ns xai orapaxV706,4 rt7o ypapiuv) should have hope,' and in the next sentence, 'Now the God of patience and consOlation (6 06; r 01.451,4 xal irapcx- xV2crecoc) grant you to be like-minded,' though the words are identical in the two clauses, and the repetition is obviously in- tended by S. Paul? And why again in the salutations at the end of this epistle, as also of others, should aorecttadie be translated now salute' and now greet,' the two renderings being inter- changed capriciously and without any law? Again, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, iii. 17, the same word phipeei is dif- ferently translated, 'If any man defile (cehiptt) the temple of God, him shall God destroy (caepe2),' though the force of the passage depends on the identity of the sin and the punishment."

Mostly our translators seem to have been led into these seemingly capricious variations by an idea of euphony. Sometimes they cannot be acquitted of a desire to heighten the effect of the original, as, for instance, when, after translating 4eeejt by "life," in " whosoever will save his life shall lose it," they render it by "seal," in "what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Passing over the second head of "Distinctions Obliterated," with only a reference to the curious passage in Acts xis. 15, where, for the demoniac's words, T?s, Nab's, 7tvulexc., xal ilotiAov iorierraaat, the Authorized Version has, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know," thus con- founding yircLexce and k4cfrulaae, while Dr. Lightfoot suggests, "Jesus I acknowledge, and Paul I know," we come to "Faults of Grammar." Here a reviser finds plenty of employment without travelling beyond the definite article. And here it is almost impossible to suppose that our translators wore wholly free from theological bias, or, at all events, from theological timidity. How else, for instance, in the great passage, Romans v. 15-19, beginning, "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift," could they have left out the significant "the" before " many "? On the other hand, they negleoted a controversial advantage against Rome when, in "to lead about a sister, a wife, as other apostles," they made the same omission. The loss, indeed, both to the theological and to the historical value of the text from this One cause can hardly be estimated. Take, as an instance of the latter, St. Luke's mention in the first chapter of the Acts of the " upper room" in Jerusalem where the Disciples assembled while they waited for the gift of the Holy Spirit. "An upper room," it appears in our version ; St. Luke wrote, "the upper room," connecting it, we cannot doubt, with "the upper room furnished," where, as he relates in his gospel, the Last Supper was eaten. If our revisers did nothing else than replace the article where it has been dropped without cause (not using, of course, the ridiculous purism, which we have noticed once or twice of late, of putting it where the genius of our language for- bids it, as before proper names and abstract ideas), they would have done good service.

Under the title of "Faults of Lexicography," we have some curious instances, some of which we shall arrange in parallel columns :— AUTHORIZED VERSION. TRUE RENDERINGS.

" I came not as yet unto Corinth." "I came no more unto Corinth." "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas." "Marcus, cousin to Barnabas." "Trees ahose fruit withereth with- "Autumn trees without fruit." out fruit."

"God which always eauseth vs to "God which leadeth us in t7 iu mph." triumph."

Our task has not been so much that of criticism, which, indeed, few persons are competent to exercise on a scholar so pro- foundly versed in Biblical lore as Dr. Lightfoot ; but to give our readers some notion of his work, and a few extracts which may induce them to study the whole. We will conclude with a passage which implies a merited rebuke to that proceeding of the Upper House of Convocation which, whether dictated by bigotry or, as it seems more probable, by the fear of bigots, threatened to put an end to the noblest work which the English Church has inaugurated for many a year :—

"Lastly ; in one respect. at least the present Revision is oommenced under very auspicious eircumatanoee. There has been great liberality in inviting the co-operation of those Biblical scholars who are not mem- bers of the Anglican communion, and they on their part have accorded a mompt and cheerful welcome to this invitation. This is a matter for great thankfulness. It may be accepted as a guarantee that the work is undertaken not with any narrow sootarian aim, but in the broad interests of truth' while also it is an earnest that, if the revision when completed recommends itself by its Intrinsic morite (and if it does not, the sooner it is forgotten the better), then no unworthy jealousy will stand in the way of its general reception. And meanwhile may we not cherish a loftier hope? Now for the first time tho Bishops of our Church and the representatives of our Convocation will moot at the same table with Nonconformist divines, and will engage in a common work of a most sacred kind,—the interpretation of those Writings which all alike reverence as the source of their truest inspiration here and the founda- tion of their highest hopes hereafter. Is it too much to anticipate that by the experience of this united work the Christian communities in England may be drawn more closely together, and that, whether it suc- ceed or fail in its immediate object, it may at least dissipate many prejudices and jealousies, may promote a hotter mutual understanding, and thus by fostering inward sympathy may load the way to greater outward harmony among themselves, and a more intimate union with the Divine Head ?"