The second department of labour is the application of the material thus collected to the correction of the text. Here again a vast amount of patient work has been done, and out of the successive labours of a long series of critics much valuable experience has been gained and the best methods gradually learnt. Amongst those who have thus laboured in the criticism of the text of the New Testament may be mentioned the names of Bengel, Wettstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort; and of that of the Old Testament, Buxtorf, Leusden, Van der Hooght, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, and Jahn.
The third department is that which is concerned with the investigation of the meaning of the sacred writers; and how much has been done in this will be manifest to any one who makes the attempt to reckon up the long series of commentaries, English and Continental, on the books of the Holy Scriptures, published since the Revision of 1611, commencing with the Annotations of the eminent Nonconformist, Henry Ainsworth, on the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Song of Solomon, 1627, down to the recent commentaries on Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, by Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, the present Bishop of Durham. The attempt to make this enumeration will deepen the desire that the light which has been shed upon the Bible by this long succession of its learned and earnest students should now be employed for the guidance and help of the ordinary readers of its pages.
To such desire emphatic expression has been given in various ways through full two generations, with an ever increasing intensity, and by representative men amongst all Christian communities.
So early in the present century as the year 1809, Dr. John Pye Smith, President of the Congregational College at Homerton, thus wrote: “That such blemishes should disfigure that translation of the best and most important of volumes, which has been and still is more read by thousands of the pious than any other version, ancient or modern; that they should be acknowledged by all competent judges to exist; that they should have been so long and often complained of; and yet that there has been no great public act, from high and unimpeachable authority, for removing them, we are constrained to view as a disgrace to our national literature. We do not wish to see our common version, now become venerable by age and prescription, superseded by another entirely _new_; every desirable purpose would be satisfactorily attained by a _faithful_ and _well-conducted revision_.”[102]