There are a great many elements
that determine the soundness and value of a translation of the Holy Scriptures.
In the article on "Archaeology and the Bible" in this issue, there is
discussion of the very major task of comparing thousands of ancient manuscripts
of the Old and New Testament in an attempt to arrive as certainly as possible
at the original writings that God has given to His people.

But even if we had the exact
original Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament texts, there could still
be rather wide variation among the translations from the Hebrew and the Greek
into English. Some existing translations have been designed to be
ultra-literal, even to the extent of following the exact word order of the
Hebrew and Greek, which, in general, is quite different from word order in
English sentences. At the other extreme, there are versions that are more like
paraphrases than true translations, devoted to making each passage
understandable, even at the expense of sometimes misrepresenting the original
text. What is needed, of course, is a translation that is accurate and faithful
to the original text without losing too much in the way of readability.

In this article I wish to focus
on one small area that has become a concern to me in my personal study of the
Scriptures. For the most part I use the King James Version (KJV) because I grew
up with it and am most familiar with it. However, one of the stated goals of
the King James translators was not to be bound to translate the same Greek or
Hebrew word by the same English word in a particular passage, even when the
sense of the word was precisely the same throughout the passage. This is how
many of us were taught to write in High School English class—try not to use the
same word twice in a paragraph. This principle may make for more beautiful
literature, but when used in translations of the Bible, it may hinder the
proper communication of God’s mind to His people.

Ironically, the KJV too often
fails in an opposite way as well, namely, translating two different Greek or
Hebrew words in the same passage with the same English word, thus blurring a
distinction intended by the Holy Spirit.

Let us consider a few
illustrations. In 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 we read in the KJV:"Charity never
fails; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be
tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away….
When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away…. When I became a man, I put away childish things." In this passage
we find four words or phrases—fail, vanish away, done away, and put away—which
are all translations of the same Greek word, katargeo, meaning"to become
unemployed, rendered of no effect, or reduced to no activity." Prophecy
(that is, speaking on behalf of God) will one day, when we are with the Lord in
heaven, give way to hearing the Lord speak to us directly. Similarly, the
receiving and imparting of knowledge on our parts will be superseded by our
learning at the feet of the Fountain of all knowledge. While we may feel that
we have attained a great measure of knowledge and wisdom and understanding of
God and His Word, verses 10 and 11 seem to be telling us that our knowledge and
understanding will suddenly explode and mature to such a degree in that future,
eternal day that what we have learned here on earth will pale in comparison.
It’s humbling, isn’t it! As another has put it, "We chatter about a
‘knowledge explosion’ in this century; it is raw stupidity compared with the
divine enlightenment that awaits us" (Wilbur E. Nelson in Believe and
Behave).

Another point in this passage
comes into clearer focus when we know the correct translation of katargeo. In
verse 8 it says, "Whether there be tongues, they shall cease," rather
than give way to something far better as in the case of prophecy and knowledge.
This is emphasized in verse 9:"We know in part, and we prophesy in
part"; note that it does not say, "We speak in tongues in part."
In other words, there is no indication that in heaven there will be a fuller,
richer, more complete, more ecstatic speaking in tongues. (Chapter 14 builds on
this.)

In verse 8 of this passage we
also have an example of the opposite problem:"Charity never fails (Greek,
ekpipto); but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail (katargeo)."
Here the KJV fails to distinguish between two different Greek words, both
translated "fail," but having somewhat different meanings.

How do other translations handle
this passage?  The New King James Version (NKJV) uses the same words as the KJV
in this passage. The New International Version (NIV) has "fail" for
ekpipto and "cease," "pass away," "disappear,"
and "put behind" for katargeo. Today’s English Version (TE V) has
"Love is eternal" in verse 8, and "temporary,"
"pass," "disappear," and "no more use" for
katargeo. However, both the J. N. Darby New Translation (JND) and the New
American Standard Bible (NASB) properly have "fail" for ekpipto and "done
away" or "did away" for the four occurrences of katargeo.

Turn now to John 21:15-17:
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou Me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that
I love Thee…. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou Me? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee….

He saith unto Him the third time,
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He said unto him
the third time, Lovest thou Me? And he said unto Him, Lord Thou knowest all
things; Thou knowest that I love Thee" (KJV).

From the KJV one would never
guess that the Lord Jesus uses two different Greek words for "love"
in this passage. In His first question to Peter He asks, "Do you have
agape love for me more than the other disciples?" He obviously is
challenging Peter’s bold assertion, "Though all men shall be offended
because of Thee, yet will I never be offended" (Matt. 26:33). Peter,
acutely aware of his three-fold denial of Christ, dares not claim that he
manifested that self-sacrificing agape love; so he responds cautiously,
"You know that I have philia love (that is, the affection that is found
between friends) for You."

The second time, the Lord Jesus
simply asks Peter, "Do you have agape love for me?" In other words,
"Not just in comparison with the other disciples, but do you have any
agape love at all for Me, Peter?" Once again Peter affirms his philia love
for Christ.

The third time Jesus takes up the
word Peter used:"Do you have philia love for Me?" This is what
struck deep in Peter’s heart and conscience. Jesus seems to be asking,
"Given all of the affection I have shown to you, all of the ways I have
helped you and befriended you, have you shown yourself to be a friend to Me in
My hour of deepest need?" Peter responds humbly, "You know all
things; You know my heart; even though I failed You miserably, You know that I
have affection for You."

Do you see how the spiritual
beauty of this passage is tremendously enhanced when the two different Greek
words are distinguished in the text? Now how do the other translations handle
this passage? The NASB, NIV, NKJV, and TEV all follow the KJV in translating
both of the Greek words "love." JND, however, properly makes the
distinction, even though his translation is rather awkward:"Yea, Lord;
Thou knowest that I am attached to Thee."

Another example is found in John
16:19-30. Seven times in this passage (verses 19,23,23,24,24, 26,30) the word
"ask" is found in the KJV. However, once again there are two Greek
words involved. The word aiteo suggests the petition of one who is lesser in
position than the one petitioned (for example, men asking of God); the word
erotao suggests the case where the petitioner is on a footing of equality or
familiarity with the one petitioned). Where it is a matter of the disciples
petitioning the Lord with whom they had lived and walked for three years
(verses 19, 23—first occurrence, and 30), the word is erotao. Where it is the
disciples petitioning the Father (verses 23—second occurrence, 24—both
occurrences, and 26), the word is aiteo. The word erotao occurs yet once more
in this passage, with reference to God the Son petitioning His Father:"I
will pray the Father for you" (verse 26).

How do the other translations
handle this passage? The NIV and TEV have "ask" all eight times. The
NKJV follows the KJV except for the word "question" instead of
"ask" in verse 30. The NASB does quite well in making the
distinction, translating aiteo "ask" all four times and erotao
"question" three times and "request" once. The JND properly
makes the distinction by consistently having "ask" for aiteo and
"demand" for erotao.

Let us now consider an example in
1 Corinthians 12:8-10:’To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same
Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the
working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to
another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues"
(KJV). Eight times we find the word "another" in this passage, but
six times the Greek word is alks denoting "another of the same sort,"
and two times it is heteros denoting "another of a different sort."
Heteros is found in verse 9 ("to another faith") and verse 10
("to another divers kinds of tongues"). Thus, the Holy Spirit seems
to have divided these spiritual gifts into three classes:(1) word of wisdom
and word of knowledge; (2) faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, and discerning
of spirits; and (3) tongues and interpretation. (Perhaps the gifts of prophecy,
tongues, and knowledge referred to in 1 Corinthians 13:8 are intended as examples
from these three classes.)

So once again the KJV fails to
make a distinction that the Holy Spirit has made in the original Greek text Do
the other translations do better? The NASB, NIV, and NKJV follow the KJV in
using "another" all the way through. The TEV is a little different
but still fails to make the appropriate distinctions. Only the JND
appropriately reads "to a different one faith" and "to a
different one kinds of tongues."

In John 14:16 we read of the
Father giving us "another Comforter," and in 1 John 2:1 we have
"an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (KJV).
Among the translations we have been considering, only the JND tells us that
"Comforter" and "Advocate" are the same word (parakletos)
in the Greek. The JND translation is "Comforter" in John 14 and
"Patron" in 1 John 2, but there is a footnote in each place that
makes the connection between the two. This word parakletos literally refers to
a person who is called to one’s side to give aid, such as an attorney. The Lord
Jesus was such a Person to His disciples (and still is that to us with respect
to our relationship with God). When He was getting ready to go back to heaven.
He promised His disciples "another Comforter" or Helper, that is, the
Holy Spirit.

Even the inattentive reader can
see where this is heading. For one seeking a good study Bible that

accurately and faithfully
translates the original Hebrew and Greek texts into English, the JND
translation is to be recommended over the others that have been mentioned.
True, the JND is not generally as easy to read as the others, but for purposes
of in-depth study of the Scriptures, digging out the jewels that God has
provided for us in His Word, it is quite valuable.

The JND is not perfect by any
means. For example, this translation, along with the KJV and TEV, fails to make
the connection between the meaning of Barnabas’s name—"son of
consolation" (Acts 4:36)—and his ministry of exhortation (Acts 11:23). The
Greek word in both cases is related to parakletos, the word elsewhere
translated "Comforter" and "Advocate" as discussed above.
The NASB, NIV, and NKJV appropriately read "son of encouragement" in
Acts 4:36 and "Barnabas… encouraged them all" (Acts 11:22,23).

For those interested in serious,
in-depth study of the Scriptures, there is something even better than the JND
translation. I am referring to the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. These are
available with interlineal (between-the-lines) English translation to help
those like myself who are not well versed in these languages. To our readers
who may be in college I would give the strongest encouragement to try to fit in
at least introductory courses in classical and New Testament Greek and Old
Testament Hebrew. It will be hard work, but most rewarding if you desire to be
a serious student of the Bible. If you have no plans for college or college is
long a thing of the past, you might consider taking correspondence courses in
these subjects. And for those of you who are home-schooling your children, I
was delighted to learn recently that at least one Christian home-schooling
course includes New Testament Greek as the foreign language. Good for them!

If you are not up to learning
Greek and Hebrew at this stage of life, you might consider a study Bible whose
words are keyed to concordances such as Strong’s or Wigram’s which are
organized by the Greek and Hebrew words as well as the English ones. Also, W.
E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words is most useful.

May the Lord encourage each one
of us to study His Word more diligently.

We shall conclude this series of
articles with a consideration of the discovery of ancient manuscripts of parts
or the whole of the Old or New Testament.

Have you ever had, or seen, an
old Bible that has been used so often over 30, 40, or 50 years that the pages
are badly stained from perspiring fingers, frayed and worn around the edges,
torn and falling out? If so, you can imagine what the original manuscripts
(called "autographs") of the 66 books of the Bible must have looked
like after a few decades of use. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the
original autographs are in existence today. However, thanks to the diligence
and carefulness of Hebrew and Christian scribes who painstakingly copied the
Scriptures by hand, a great many ancient manuscripts of the Old and New
Testament exist today, forming the basis for the Holy Bible as we know it.

Manuscripts of the Hebrew Old
Testament

Prior to 1947 the oldest
available Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament dated back only to the tenth
century A.D. But while these manuscripts are not very old (relative to when the
books of the Old Testament were first written), they are considered to be of great
authority owing to the reverence of Jewish scribes for the Word of God and the
consequent carefulness of their transcription.

The scribes had a very intricate
system for transcribing scrolls of the Scriptures, including the following
regulations:(1) A scroll must be written on the skins of clean animals and
fastened together with strings taken from clean animals; (2) every skin must
contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire manuscript;
(3) the length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60
lines and the breadth must consist of 30 letters; (4) the ink must be black and
be prepared according to a definite recipe; (5) the existing copy must be
authentic, from which there must not be the least deviation by the scribe; (6)
no word or letter, not even a yod or "jot" (Matt. 5:18; the smallest
letter in the Hebrew alphabet), must be written from memory, the scribe not
having looked at the manuscript before him; (7) between every consonant the
space of a hair or thread must intervene; and (8) upon completing the
transcription of a book many checks must be carried out (such as counting the
number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in the book and finding the
middle letter and middle word of the book) as a safeguard against mistakes. The
scrolls in which these regulations were not observed were condemned to be
buried in the ground or burned, or they were banished to the schools to be used
as reading books.

Because of such carefulness, the
scribes were so convinced they had an exact duplicate that they would give the
new copy equal authority. And thus when an older manuscript became defaced or
damaged over the course of years, it was condemned as unfit for use. Attached
to each synagogue was a cupboard in which defective manuscripts were laid
aside, and from these receptacles have been recovered some of the oldest
manuscripts still in existence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947 a Bedouin goatherd
accidentally discovered a number of parchment scrolls in a cave in the cliffs
at the northwestern edge of the Dead Sea. Subsequently, eleven caves in the
area have been found to contain tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments.
Some of the scrolls revealed that the discoveries are the remains of the library
of the Essenes, a Jewish sect which occupied the area from the second century
B.C. until besieged by the Romans around 68 A.D.

Of monumental importance to
biblical scholars has been the discovery of a great many manuscripts and
fragments of Old Testament books among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Every Old
Testament book except Esther is represented. Among these is a complete copy of
the Book of Isaiah, dated at about 100 B.C. When this Isaiah scroll was
compared with the tenth century manuscripts—one thousand years apart—they were
found to be word for word identical in more than 95 percent of the text. The
five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and
variations in spelling.

The Septuagint

Around 250 B.C. the Pentateuch
(first five books of the Old Testament) was translated into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt. The remainder of the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the
following century. According to tradition, there were 72 translators, six from
each of the twelve tribes of Israel, thus the name Septuagint, Latin for
"70." The earliest copies of the Septuagint in existence today date
back to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. While the Septuagint was never
widely accepted as authoritative by Hebrew scholars, some of the Dead Sea
Scroll fragments of the Old Testament have been found to agree more closely
with the Septuagint translation than with the standard Hebrew text.

Manuscripts of the Greek New
Testament

New Testament documents fall into
three major categories:Manuscripts in the original Greek language, early
translations of the Greek New Testament into other languages, and quotations
from the New Testament in the voluminous writings of Christians in the second
to fourth centuries A.D.

New Testament manuscripts in the
original Greek language fall into two classes:(1) "uncials" which
were written in a capital letter script, dating from the second to the tenth
centuries and numbering about 240; and (2) "cursives" which were
written in lower case letters in a free-hand script with the letters joined
together, dating from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries and numbering
between 4,000 and 5,000.

The earliest New Testament
manuscripts are papyri mainly found preserved in fragments in the dry sands of Egypt. Nearly all of these discoveries or acquisitions have been made since 1930. The
oldest known fragment of the New Testament is a piece of papyrus found in the
1930’s containing John 18:31-33 and 37,38 and dated in the period 100-150 A.D.
This can be found in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England. The Bodmer Papyri, dated 150-200 A.D., contain most of the Gospel of John, and the Chester
Beatty Papyri, dated around 200 A.D., include major portions of the New
Testament The oldest complete, or nearly complete, manuscripts in existence of
the Greek New Testament—Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex
Alexandrinus—are inscribed on parchment (from animal skins) and date back to
350-400 A.D. (Note:the term "codex" refers to the manuscript being
made up of pages in book form, as distinguished from a continuous scroll.)

No doubt many interesting
stories—like that of the Dead Sea Scrolls—could be told about the discovery of
the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. Probably the best-publicized
account of such a discovery pertains to the so-called Codex Sinaiticus— the
fourth century manuscript of the entire-New Testamentplus half of the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament found at the foot of Mount Sinai. The following is
a brief overview of the story.

Dr. Konstantin von Tischendorf
(1815-1874) was a German scholar who devoted much of his lifetime to the
discovery and study of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. He traveled all over
the East, searching every old library he could get into for the purpose. While
visiting the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery (Eastern Orthodox) at the
foot of Mount Sinai in 1844 he noticed a basket full of old parchments. The
librarian told him that two heaps of similar old documents had already been
used for the fires. Those parchments turned out to be part of a copy of the
Septuagint Old Testament, the most ancient-looking manuscript that he had ever
seen. The convent authorities allowed him to takeaway about 40 sheets. Upon his
return to Germany, his precious sheets made a great sensation in the literary
world. Meanwhile, the monks of the convent learned the value of the parchments
and could not be persuaded to part with the rest of them at any price. To make
a long story short, Tischendorf returned to the convent in 1859 with a
commission from Czar Alexander n of Russia to try to obtain the rest of the
sheets. However, he found very little of any value and made arrangements to
leave. But the very evening before he was to leave he was walking in the
grounds with the steward of the convent, and as they returned the monk asked
him into his room. There he took down a bulky bundle wrapped in red cloth and
laid it on the table. Tischendorf, to his great surprise and joy, found not
only those parchments that he had seen fifteen years before, but also other
parts of the Old Testament and the complete New Testament. At length, through
the Czar’s influence, Tischendorf succeeded in obtaining the precious
manuscript for display and study in the Library of St. Petersburg. Subsequently
it was purchased by the British Government from the Soviet Union in 1933 for
100,000 pounds and is now located in the British Museum.

But the story isn’t over yet. In
1974, workmen doing repairs at the monastery accidentally penetrated a wall and
discovered behind it a trove of some 3,000 additional manuscripts, including
some missing parts of the Old Testament portion of the Codex Sinaiticus and
other ancient biblical manuscripts.

While the Codex Sinaiticus, dated
around 350 A.D., is considered to be the oldest complete manuscript of the
Greek New Testament, there is some question among Bible scholars (see, for
example, the Preface to the Second Edition of J. N. Darby’s New Translation of
the New Testament) as to whether it is as accurate as some of the later
manuscripts. (We shall return to this issue in the concluding section of this
article.)

Early Translations of the New Testament

During the first three or four
centuries A.D. the Greek New Testament was translated into Syriac, Egyptian,
Latin and a number of other languages. The Syriac New Testament was probably in
use about 50 years after the New Testament was completed, and represented very
nearly the language of the people among whom our Lord moved. There are about
350 copies of this translation, dating back to the fifth century, in existence
today. The New Testament was first translated into Coptic (or Egyptian) in the
third century and into the Gothic and Latin languages in the fourth century.
The most familiar Latin version is known as the Vulgate, translated by Eusebius
Hieronymus, or better known today as "St. Jerome." About 8,000
ancient manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate have been discovered.

Quotations by Christian
Writers

A great many quotations from the
Greek New Testament have been found in the writings of Christian teachers(the
so-called "church fathers") of the second to fourth centuries. Ignatius
of Antioch in Syria wrote seven letters prior to his martyrdom in Rome in 108 A.D. These letters contain quotations from fifteen of the New Testament books.
Cyprian, born in Carthage, North Africa, around 200 A.D., and martyred in 258,
quoted the New Testament some 1,030 times in his writings. Tertullian (160-220
A.D.), who also lived in Carthage, quoted from the four Gospels some 3,800
times and the rest of the New Testament another 3,000 times. Origen of
Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) quoted the New Testament over 18,000 times in his
many writings. At least 36,000 citations of the New Testament by second to
fourth century Christian writers are known today. J. H. Greenlee in
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism states that these quotations by
the early Christian writers "are so extensive that the New Testament could
virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament
manuscripts."

Putting It All Together

In summary, there exist in
libraries around the world some 5,000 copies of ancient manuscripts of the
Greek New Testament, 9,000 copies of early translations of the New Testament
into other languages, and over 30,000 quotations of the New Testament by the
early church fathers. The wealth of manuscript material for the New Testament
exceeds by a factor of twenty or more the amount of material available for any
other ancient literary text (such as Homer’s Iliad and Caesar’s Gallic War).
Also the copies of New Testament manuscripts available to us are much older,
that is, closer to the date of original composition, than is the case with the
writings of the classical Greek and Roman writers.

The value of having such a wealth
of manuscripts available lies in the ability, by comparison of manuscripts, to
identify copying errors and thus reconstruct the original autograph. This is
done by constructing a "family tree" of manuscripts. Clearly this is
a tremendous undertaking, and it appears to this editor that this work so far
has been limited to perhaps 50 uncial manuscripts, a handful of cursives, and a
few of the early translations (see the Introductory Notice to J. N. Darby’s New
Translation of the New Testament).

William Pickering in The Identity
of the New Testament Text (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980) writes, "Not
only are we presently unable to specify the precise wording of the original
text, but it will require considerable time and effort before we can be in a
position to do so.. ..The lnstitut fur Neutestamentlich Textforschung in Munster, Germany has a collection of microfilms of some 4,500 of the extant Greek
manuscripts (around 80% of them) and scholars connected with the Institut are
collating selected ones…. It is the availability of sophisticated computers
and programs that seems to me to hold the key. It is now feasible to collate
the manuscripts in Munster and set up a computer program such that we can find
out anything we want to know about the interrelationships of the manuscripts.
In this way it should be possible to identify and trace the pure stream of
transmission of the text and to declare with confidence, based on objective
criteria, the precise wording of the original text! It will take dedicated,
competent persons and money—plenty of both—but will it not be worth it? May God
burden His servants!"

It is true that a number of
substantial variations exist among the multitude of existing manuscripts of the
New Testament. Three examples of these variations that are often discussed are
whether Mark 16:9-20 should be included or excluded, whether John 7:53-8:11
should be in or out, and whether John 1:18 should read "only-begotten
God" or "only-begotten Son." The New International Version,
based heavily on the oldest manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus, differs from the King James Version with respect to all three of
these variations. Some scholars today are questioning whether
"oldest" is "best." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1987
edition, states insightfully, "It is not always age that matters. Older
manuscripts may be corrupt, and a reading in a later manuscript may in reality
be ancient."

In conclusion, we can take
comfort in the following perspective provided by Frederic Kenyon, an authority
in the field of New Testament textual criticism:"No fundamental doctrine
of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes
and divergences of reading … might give rise to the doubt whether the
substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It
cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is
certain."

(The material in this article was
abstracted from J. McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, H. F. Vos,
An Introduction to Bible Archaeology, J. P. Smyth, How We Got Our
Bible, R. K. Harrison, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and The New
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1987 edition, in addition to the works referenced
in the text.)

(Ed. note:In the preceding
article mention is made of Ignatius of Antioch, an early Christian martyr who
often quoted the New Testament in his writings. The story of his death is now
recounted.)

There is no fact in early church
history more sacredly preserved than the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch; and
there is no narrative more celebrated than his journey, as a prisoner in
chains, from Antioch to Rome.

According to the general opinion
of historians, the Emperor Trajan, when on his way to the Parthian War in the
year 107 A.D., visited Antioch. From what cause it is difficult to say, but it
appears that the Christians were threatened with persecution by his orders.
Ignatius, therefore, being concerned for the church in Antioch, desired to be
introduced to Trajan’s presence. His great object was to prevent, if possible,
the threatened persecution. With this end in view, he set forth to the Emperor
the true character and condition of the Christians, and offered himself to
suffer in their stead.

This resulted in the condemnation
of Ignatius. He was sentenced by the Emperor to be carried to Rome and thrown
to the wild beasts for the entertainment of the people. He welcomed the severe
sentence, and gladly submitted to be bound, believing it was for his faith in
Christ and as a sacrifice for the saints.

Ignatius was now committed to the
charge of ten soldiers, who appear to have disregarded his age and to have
treated him with great harshness. He had been a bishop of the church of Antioch for nearly forty years, and so must have been an old man. But they hurried
him over a long journey, both by sea and by land, in order to reach Rome before the games were ended. He arrived on the last day of the festival, and was
carried at once to the amphitheater where he suffered according to his sentence
in the sight of the assembled spectators. And thus the weary pilgrim found rest
from the fatigues of his long journey in the blessed repose of the paradise of
God.

It has been asked, Why was
Ignatius taken all the way from Antioch to Rome to suffer martyrdom? The answer
can only be conjecture.

It may have been with the
intention of striking fear into other Christians by the spectacle of one so
eminent and so well-known brought in chains to a dreadful and degrading death. 
But if this was the Emperor’s expectation, he was entirely disappointed. It had
just the opposite effect. The report of his sentence and of his intended route
spread far and wide, and deputations from the surrounding churches were sent to
meet him at convenient points. He was thus cheered and greeted with the warmest
congratulations of his brethren; and they, in return, were delighted to receive
his parting blessing. Many of the saints would thereby be encouraged to brave,
if not to desire, a martyr’s death and a martyr’s crown. Among the number who
met him by the way was Polycarp of Smyrna, who, like Ignatius, had been a
disciple of the Apostle John, and was destined to be a martyr for the gospel.
But besides these personal interviews, he wrote seven letters on this journey
which have been preserved in the providence of God and handed down to us. Great
interest has ever been, and still is, attached to these letters. (See the next
article for some extracts from these letters.)

(From Short Papers on Church
History.)